Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[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.

[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').

[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]

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....

[The Good Michael]

One thing that gets overlooked in the Hutch argument is that the young man of 23-ish, in order to be JTR, had to have been the most earnest of liars to come up with a story about a seemingly Jewish toff, with either an odd assortment of clothing or a misrepresentation of his digs by Hutch, and a story of what happened that makes modern ripperologists (some) quiver in disbelief, and to have that story not only believed by the coppers, but endorsed as well. And all this after his alibi was certainly checked out, and his interrogation was completed. What I'm suggesting is that in order for Hutch to be the killer, we have a combination if the world's greatest teller of a lousy tale and a police force of the Keystone Cops. If I can believe that, I certainly can adopt the League of Impuned Anti-semitic Horsemen as a component surely.

Mike

[FrankO]

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

[Rubyretro]

Lawende, Levy & Harris were three people -so they are alibis for each other
(I think that we all agree that JtR was acting alone). It would take considerable strength to choke a victim and kill her making no noise, as well as the fact that there is a sexual aspect to these crimes. Unless one of the female witnesses was a muscle bound lesbien who had an ability to persuade her victims into a quiet concealed yard, I think that Jill-the Ripper is a non starter. I don't think that any of the other witnesses were clearly identified as 'hanging about' (for up to an hour) outside the place where a murder was committed, at the right time. And none of the others told such a pack of lies.
The police may have believed Hutchinson -but they were looking for someone with a different profile. You cannot say that the police were right, since they never caught anybody.

All serial killers have a 'first' victim
Serial killers usually give a 'sign' of 'something' in their youth.
We don't know anything of Hutchinson's earlier life YET.
Because we don't know something NOW doesn't mean it is impossible to know.
JtR displayed no violence (that we know of) towards live women.
JtR displayed controlled violence towards dead women's bodies.
To know if Hutchinson was JtR, it would be very important to know if he had displayed any devient behaviour in the past.
Devient behaviour need not include murder, nor necessarily knife crimes.
(PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS).

[Fleetwood Mac]

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!

[Rubyretro]

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. It follows thus it is not accurate to say this man would have been viewed then and should be now viewed with 'considerable suspicion' (based on his claim he was near the murder scene - unless you're willing to apply the same logic to the women witnesses who came forward - and Lawende/Levy/Harris etc etc - in other words: it's a cul-de-sac).

The reality of this case is that to date there is insufficient evidence to point to any particular known suspect. The best you're going to get is that the most likely suspects are those who are known to have attacked women with knives and the most likely scenario is this: the murderer has never been indentified as a suspect. I know this won't be of much use to those who have claimed a suspect as their own - but that is the crux of the matter like it or not - but surely people can enjoy the case and its eccentricities regardless of whether solved. So - someone like Sadler is a better option than someone like Druitt or Tumblety - but the best option is never been identified - and Hutchinson? where's the evidence he displayed violence towards anyone let alone women?

And something along the lines of 'we don't know much about him' just doesn't wash - as ever the burden of proof falls on the accuser - that's the rule of law - and were you to turn up in court and say: "he did it - no evidence to support it - but it's up to him to prove he didn't".......then you may end up in one of those Asylums in the East End at worst......you'd most certainly be laughed out of court.....and possibly charged with wasting police time.

Lawende, Levy & Harris were three people -so they are alibis for each other
(I think that we all agree that JtR was acting alone). It would take considerable strength to choke a victim and kill her making no noise, as well as the fact that there is a sexual aspect to these crimes. Unless one of the female witnesses was a muscle bound lesbien who had an ability to persuade her victims into a quiet concealed yard, I think that Jill-the Ripper is a non starter. I don't think that any of the other witnesses were clearly identified as 'hanging about' (for up to an hour) outside the place where a murder was committed, at the right time. And none of the others told such a pack of lies.
The police may have believed Hutchinson -but they were looking for someone with a different profile. You cannot say that the police were right, since they never caught anybody.

[The Good Michael]

He had a gold 'horse shoe' pin on his tie (that is some thing very particular :
the 'witness' is described as an unemployed groom. I'm telling you that 'horse shoes' are found as a symbol on the badge of the Company of Farriers in Essex. If you don't believe me, you will have to admit that it has a link with horses.

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

[Rubyretro]

Let's see....

Witness claims:
* to have seen Mary Kelly between (2:30) and 3:00 am
* with a man:
* age (35)-40,
* who had a distinctive gait
* who had a dark moustache
* who had a pale face
* who attemped to prevent a direct view of his face
* whose height was between (5-6) and 5-7
* who was respectably dressed
* who wore a long dark coat
* who wore a short jacket underneath,
* who wore dark "mixture" trousers
* who wore a low crowned dark felt hat
* who carried a shiny black bag (parcel)

What does this tell us about Astrakhan Man?

Marlowe -you've left the most important details out !!!!!!!!!
He had an astrakhan trimmed overcoat and looked like a 'toff' (making him very unusual indeed for such a poor area of Whitechapel).

He had a gold 'horse shoe' pin on his tie (that is something very particular :
the 'witness' is described as an unemployed groom. I'm telling you that 'horse shoes' are found as a symbol on the badge of the Company of Farriers in Essex. If you don't believe me, you will have to admit that it has a link with horses. Even if you won't accept that Hutchinson invented his description, at the very least it is a strange coincidence).

He had a massive gold watch chain on show ( in an area which already had a reputation for being terribly poor and murderous -this must be like walking around Peckham in a rolex. Not only that but there was a red stone on his watch chain. Even if you want to make excuse for the gold chain -the red stone narrows down the number of people who could be this man to a minimum. Yet Hutchinson 'forgot' to give this detail to the police, and
'remembered' it later).

A combination of the watch with stone + pin would apply to only ONE person, surely ? Someone would HAVE to recognise this description if published in the papers.

The details that you listed, Marlowe, could apply to alot of people -the bits that you left out are crucial. Don't try and twist the facts.

[The Good Michael]

Mac,

Completely lucid post. Hard to refute what you say.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

It appears there is a difference of view on what is considered suspicious.The object of Hutchinson coming forward appears to be to appraise the authorities that the last person seen in the company of Kelly before she was killed,was a Jewish male.This person was not seen by anyone else,was never identified,and did not resemble persons seen in the company of previous victims shortly before they were killed.Further there is serious doubt expressed by many,that Hutchinson could in the short time available,observe and retain in memory,the detailed description he gave to police.Added to that is the time delay in coming forward,for which no explanation is given.
These are facts not conjecture.There is more.They do not prove him guilty of any criminal act,but they raise a doubt of whether the truth was being told,and when truth is in doubt,suspicion is not unwarranted.

Hi Harry...

They're not facts.

It is not a fact that Hutchinson could not possibly have remembered the details.

It is not a fact that Hutchinson set out to mislead the police into thinking the killer was a Jew.

It is not a fact that this person was not seen by anyone else.

And even were points 1 and 3 facts - it is still merely speculation when suggesting Hutchinson was involved.

In sum: your speculation isn't even based on facts; it is speculation based on speculation.

Each one of your 'facts' could be taken to be an indication of some involvement but they equally could be taken to be an indication that he was telling the truth or was lying for reasons that have nothing to do with the murder.

The point is this: everything is open to interpretation unless it is a cast iron fact. To illustrate: I could interpret the bible in one fashion; you in a different fashion - ditto the world - ditto politics. As there is only one bible/one world/one society - then it is a matter of what you and I want to see/believe - unless of course there are some cast-iron facts that render the issue not open to debate. And assuming you agree that this is all open to debate then it is fine to speculate yes - but fruitless to suggest Hutchinson is a 'major suspect'.

What is a cast iron fact is that another man was seen going into her room with a jug of beer. Now to me that makes him a better suspect - it is a cast-iron fact - assuming the witness is good for her word. Whether or not you believe he would have stayed in the room waiting for her to go to sleep - well that is mere speculation - though as he had a jug of beer it suggests he had intentions of being there for a while - you would have to know the mind of that man to understand whether or not he was the type to wait and strike - I'd say there's as much chance of that as there is that he would have killed her pretty quickly. And then you could speculate that if this man just wanted sex - then no need to go back to her room - and ask yourself what was it about the room that was attractive to him? He obviously didn't plan on staying the night so it wasn't for a bed.

[harry]

It appears there is a difference of view on what is considered suspicious.The object of Hutchinson coming forward appears to be to appraise the authorities that the last person seen in the company of Kelly before she was killed,was a Jewish male.This person was not seen by anyone else,was never identified,and did not resemble persons seen in the company of previous victims shortly before they were killed.Further there is serious doubt expressed by many,that Hutchinson could in the short time available,observe and retain in memory,the detailed description he gave to police.Added to that is the time delay in coming forward,for which no explanation is given.
These are facts not conjecture.There is more.They do not prove him guilty of any criminal act,but they raise a doubt of whether the truth was being told,and when truth is in doubt,suspicion is not unwarranted.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FLAC

The police knew full well they were looking for a male murderer. The three witnesses in Duke Street saw Eddowes with a man minutes before she was murdered, this rules out any of the female witnesses invovlved. As for Lawende, Levy, and Harris, they continued walking together, Eddowes, in all probability, was dead before they parted to go their separate way. This of course rules out the Duke Street trio of any involvment in the murder of Eddowes. Hutchinson had no alibi whatsoever, he was observed looking towards Millers Court shortly before Kelly was mudrered, he admitted this, and was also seen by Sarah Lewis doing the same. He is a major suspect.

Observer

Hi Observer....

a) It could quite easily be speculated that the 3 men didn't see that which they claimed to see - and made it up or changed the details for whatever reason you or I wish to imagine. Ditto Hutchinson.

b) Looking up at a window does not make him a 'major suspect'. Take that to court - and it certainly wouldn't stand up. I'm a tad perplexed here on why people are claiming he should be viewed as a 'major suspect' or with 'considerable suspicion' when the best being offered is that he was at a murder scene - not sufficient. The only thing that would make him a major suspect is were it to turn out that the police had checked out his story and he was found to be lying - then again even that wouldn't make him a major suspect as he could just as easily have been an attention seeker and only claimed to be the man Lewis had seen.

What really would make him a major suspect is a statement along the lines of he was seen going into Kelly's room. Now then you'd have something.

To reiterate: the burden of proof falls on the accuser. It would be wise to bear in mind this cornerstone of English Law.

I really think the starting point for a half decent suspect should be someone who is known to have displayed extreme violence to women with knives. Were it me I'd be focussing on such people and trying to uncover anything remotely connecting such people to the murders. And I suppose this is what makes someone like James Kelly a possibility - though the evidence known to date suggests it wasn't him nor any of the known suspects.