Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Eddowes killer knew full well that he'd been seen by Lawende and company, but he still murdered Eddowes. Elizabeth Long literally walked past Chapman and a man she was talking to very very shortly before her murder, but he still killed her. This killer took risks believe me.

So....he knew he'd been seen by 2 people who couldn't link Hutchinson to the murders......why would he be so concerned about a third person seeing him then....meaning why would he come forward this time....and not the other two times?

[Observer]

And how did Lewis know that the man she saw standing opposite Miller's court was just about to kill Mary Kelly. Lewis would not have deterred Kelly's killer

[Observer]

Who saying he killed the other women?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And how did Lewis know that the man she saw standing opposite Miller's court was just about to kill Mary Kelly. Lewis would not have deterred Kelly's killer

Isn't that what's known as bait and switch Observer?

Back to the question:

You say he was sighted twice and obviously didn't come forward - were Hutchinson the killer: why would he come forward this time?

[Observer]

As I said I don't believe Hutchinson killed Eddowes or Chapman

[Garry Wroe]

And he knew he'd been seen....so he goes and kills someone? You'd have to be keen on having your life prematurely ended by means of the noose?

Presumably, this dictum applies to Blotchy as well as Hutchinson, does it not?

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Didn't Hutchinson say something like: "I've given Mary money from time to time"? If so - he is certainly putting himself forward as a benevolent man....

Given your previous comments relating to the Whitechapel Murderer's compassionate nature, this would appear to put Hutchinson squarely in the frame.

Garry Wroe.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Presumably, this dictum applies to Blotchy as well as Hutchinson, does it not?

Garry Wroe.

Absolutely. Blotchy is only a better bet than Hutchinson because he is known to have been in the room. I wouldn't place a great deal of emphasis on him not seen leaving.

[bolo]

Hi Observer, Paul, all,

maybe Hutch took the bull by the horns and came forward with a testimony to avoid trouble (he may have read about the inquest in the papers and knew that it was time to take action), then tried to make the game safe with an exaggerated story.

Perhaps his story and timing were more clever than we think.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Given your previous comments relating to to the Whitechapel Murderer's compassionate nature, this would appear to put Hutchinson squarely in the frame.

Garry Wroe.

The point may have been missed.

I was suggesting that Hutchinson could have been attempting to paint himself as a benevolent man when in fact he had never given Kelly money - the aim being to infer that he was a generous bloke rather than a killer - the power of suggestion or something like that.

But the point of this is/was to say that there a lot of possibilities that could be argued either way - except Hutchinson was not seen going into the room at any point - which pretty much negates all else as all else will simply be argued back and forth......"well...he could have done this"..."of course but that same thing could mean this"....."ah but...." and so on until someone suffers a long slow agonising death induced by what's known in the medical world as Hutchinson's Circle Disease that grips people with a mania whereby they just can't stop arguing about Hutchinson even though they'll never get beyond a verdict of possible but improbable.

[Garry Wroe]

Okay, then, FM, let's take another tack.

His story would be checked out definitely - and he would be the subject of such suspicion only where and when his account was proven to be flawed.

Hutchinson's police and press statements were not only contradictory, they were fatally flawed in several areas. His claim, for example, that Kelly was merely a little tipsy when the two allegedly met on Commercial Street was in direct contradiction of Mary Ann Cox's account which depicted Kelly as almost incoherently drunk shortly before midnight - and this at a juncture when Kelly entered her room with Blotchy and yet more alcohol.

Garry Wroe.

[Observer]

It's official, both Blotchy and Hutchinson are in the clear. Neither would have killed Kelly and risked the noose, they having been seen in the vicinity of Kelly's abode shortly before her murder.

[Garry Wroe]

Which means that Broad Shoulders and the man seen by Lawende are in the clear, too.

Garry Wroe.

[Observer]

And the man seen by Elizabeth Long with Annie Chapman, presuming he was her killer of course.

[Adam Went]

Frank:

Like Best & Gardner in Stride’s case, Hutchinson was just surprised to see such a well dressed man in Kelly’s company. Unlike Hutchinson, Best & Gardner didn’t take any action. Lawende’s companion Levy seems to have harbored some unclear suspicions against the couple at the entrance to Mitre Square, but didn’t even take the trouble of looking at them.

Unlike Hutchinson, Best & Gardner weren't personal acquaintances of the victim either. Hutchinson had personal interest reasons to be following to see what happened. I don't know if Joe Barnett was ever questioned on what he knew about George Hutchinson, but perhaps he should have been!

That's because you overlook a step. Hutchinson tells us that the reason why he walked about all night is that his usual digs was closed. Which infers he went there with money in his pocket to try and get a bed, but found it to be closed.

Not necessarily, he could have already payed for a bed before he left the home the last time. Or he could have been in some sort of agreement with the landlord to do some of his labouring work in exchange for a bed. All conjecture, of course, but this sort of thing wasn't uncommon at all.

Or maybe he did have money and he just didn't want to give any of it to MJK because he knew he'd likely never see it again....it would turn into a gift, rather than a loan....I think we've all been in that position before.

But let’s look at it this way. Hutchinson’s account paints a picture of an upstanding citizen who wants to help the police in catching a killer, right? If you agree, then you’ll probably also agree that it’s a small and logical step to say that he actively watched Kelly’s punter and memorized as much as he could about him for the purpose of doing something good with it when that proved necessary. So, looking at it from this perspective, 3 days is rather long.

Again, personal interests, as opposed to trying to be a good citizen.
Hutchinson had no need to make the statement he did - he could just as easily have never come forward and the police would never have been any the wiser. Or he could have come forward and said "yes I saw a man with the victim but I only saw him back-on and couldn't give a thorough description at all" and distanced himself from the whole thing. As it is, he gave his detailed description and put himself in something of a perilous position in the process, and the very fact that he would do this at all, 3 days afterwards or otherwise, is a major tick for his innocence in any wrong-doing, IMO.

Cheers,
Adam.