Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[The Good Michael]

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.

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

[Observer]

Hi FLAC

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 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

[Adam Went]

DVV:

Yes, your point is somewhat clearer now, and thanks for explaining.
All I can say to that is what I already said before, that Mary might have been well known once she entered Miller's Court, by neighbours and such, but not so much when she was out on the streets looking for clients. Besides, there's no reason to believe that her neighbours would take any special notice in the early hours of an apparently wet night. They would be used to people coming and going from the area, and I believed stated something similar to that as well.

It's still dangerous to call Lawende the best witness in the case.....there's one major difference between Lawende and Hutchinson, and that is that one was a Jewish man, the other was not. With the hype over the Ripper murders and a general public belief that the killer must be a Jew, Lawende might have had interests in protecting a fellow countryman, might he not? Lawende himself may have been the target of such anti-semitism, like Israel Schwartz 45 minutes before him.

Again, you can ask questions of any major witness in the case.....for the record, I'm using that just as an example, as I believe Lawende's story and description....having said that, I personally think PC Smith is the best witness, but since he saw Liz a full half hour before her body was discovered, and the testimony of Israel Schwartz says that she was no longer with the man Smith saw her with, the question is whether or not the man PC Smith saw was one and the same as Liz's killer, or whether she met another man afterwards.

As for Hutch seeing the man again.....how many times have you walked through your local downtown mall and run into people you know? No matter how big the city, this is a regular occurrence. There's always a possibility that Hutch might have...what's the word to use - embellished - his story somewhat, but there's no reason why that should mean the basics weren't true.

Garry:

You could take any of the canonical murders and say exactly the same thing about witnesses or people who were living/working nearby. I don't quite understand the reasoning here that the MJK murder was unique in any way to any of the others, other than that she was killed indoors.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Uniquely, Adam, in Hutchinson we have an individual who can be placed at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. In any competent modern murder investigation such a man would be viewed with considerable suspicion.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

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.

[Marlowe]

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?

[Garry Wroe]

Hutchinson, IMO, is on par as a suspect with the likes of Carroll, Sickert and Gull.....

Uniquely, Adam, in Hutchinson we have an individual who can be placed at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. In any competent modern murder investigation such a man would be viewed with considerable suspicion.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hi Adam,

What do you mean by the question over Eddowes being well known? I'm not sure what you're getting at there

No, I've never said so. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Our exchanges went like this :

1- I said nobody saw Mary soliciting in the streets after Blotchy, except Hutch.

2- You've responded that other victims had not been seen either, ie: it hardly means Hutch was lying.

3- To which I replied that you can't compare, for Mary was well known around Dorset Street/ Miller's Court, and surely if she had been soliciting and bringing clients home after Blotchy, this would have been noticed - not only by Hutch.

Hope it's clear now.

No, I definitely believe the man Lawende saw was the Ripper.

That's right, and that's the reason why I said he was our "best" witness.

As for Hutch....London was, and is a big city. And very little is known about Hutch outside of the MJK murder.

The fact that it's a big city doesn't explain Hutch's behaviour.

Btw, since it was such a big and densely populated city, don't you find extraordinary that Hutch saw Astrakhan Man again on Sunday morning ???

To the best of my knowledge, Lawende never said he saw Sailor Man again.

Amitiés,
David

[Adam Went]

DVV:

do you seriously think that Eddowes was well known in Mitre Square ?

do you seriously think that the man seen by Lawende wasn't the Ripper ? (PC Smith could well have seen the ripper too, but as already pointed out, since some doubt Stride's canonicity...)

as to Hutch - family, travel, illness???
well, he was dossing in the VH, and on Sunday morning, he was traveling...in Petticoat Lane...!

What do you mean by the question over Eddowes being well known? I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but in any case, there was an off duty policeman sleeping on the other side of the wall, and a night watchman on duty on the other side of the square.....neither of whom heard or saw anything.

No, I definitely believe the man Lawende saw was the Ripper. I see no reason for him to be lying about it either. My point simply was that you could pick out any witness in the case that you like and there would be a case that could be made to say they weren't telling the complete truth.

As for Hutch....London was, and is a big city. And very little is known about Hutch outside of the MJK murder.

Fleetwood:

Pleased that you're in agreement. Yes, that was Levy who made that remark, but regardless of who said it, it's still an odd comment....I'm sure all 3 of them would have come across thousands of prostitutes in their time, especially if they were accustomed to walking the streets late at night on a weekend.

Frank:

People often complain in the JTR case that there isn't a clearer description of the killer, and more witness sightings. Well there you have it, Hutchinson gave one. And yet a lot of people think he was an outright liar, some others think he actually killed MJK, and others would even go so far as to say that he was JTR altogether - I've heard similar things about Israel Schwartz and Charles Cross. If this is the kind of treatment that witnesses in the JTR case get, is it any wonder that there wasn't more of them? I'd be reluctant to come forward as well....

Ruby:

Don't be playing the poor, innocent new member. I was the same once upon a time myself, believe it or not. The fact is that whether you've been researching the case for a week or for ten years, if you're prepared to come on the forums and start spouting all sorts of theories as facts that have no basis in the evidence at all, then you have to be prepared to receive some strong worded answers in reply. That's just the way of it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Mac -I spent some time writing this reply to everybody in general, before I read this interesting post. I shall post the reply (which is 'large') first, and then reply to you specifically ......I just want to say a few things here to defend myself and my theories, because it is totally unjustified to write me off as a fantasist, as my ideas are perfectly plausible, and I quite take exception at some of the accusations aimed at me here...It seems to me that the minute people can't reply with a coherent argument, then they resort to insults..

Well I hope you didn't get that idea from me. I'm not dismissing you as a person. But I am saying that you or anyone else needs some sort of evidence to support their theories. You/I/anyone else. There's not a lot of point in speculating about something that's 'perfectly plausible' when that is as good at it gets. That's the rule of law Ruby - nothing to see when the best that is offered is 'perfectly plausible' but steeped in no facts whatsoever. Perhaps this is a matter of English pragmatism versus French idealism :-) And that's not dismissing the French either - it's merely a reference to out cultural differences.

I think that were you to come up with even a small portion of evidence - people would take your theory seriously.

Your belief that people would be more anti-semitic in Dover than the East End of London.....well that would be a monumental misconceived assumption. The towns and cities are the bastions of Liberalism; the shires the bastions of Conservatism. It is urban life that spurns more liberal political views for various reasons. I could apply the same to Germany - Berlin was a haven of Communism and Socialism during the 1930s - primarily because - just like England - industrial workers tended to flock to Trade Unionism out of self preservation and it follows thus socialist ideas.

Please do inform me if you find some interesting facts though Ruby and good luck with it!

All the best and no offence intended :-)

[Rubyretro]

My opinion would be Ruby that there is a certain amount of looking for a mystery - that is the starting point/the objective - an objective that seems to lead the 'evidence'.

The starting point is not looking for a mystery. The starting point is that when looking for a murderer, the first person in line as 'suspect' is the last person to see the victim alive, whether they admit to that or not.

Yet what Hutchinson says is not so unbelievable.

Hutchinson's story about a rich looking toff, in an astrakhan overcoat, with flashy button boots, a gold tie pin and a gold watch chain is totally unbelievable. We are talking about a densely populated area of a huge city
at the weekend. We are talking about an area filled with working class people who were suffering extreme poverty, yet this person was noticed by none except Hutchinson...not only that, but Hutchinson may have seen him again on Sunday! Someone (is it you ?) memorably compared this person as a ferrari cruising along the street. It's like someone in designer clothes and a Rolex in Peckham very late at night: he would really have been noticed, had he existed. Even the police quickly discounted his existance. Furthermore, Hutchinson described this 'toff' as having a 'horse shoe' pin -which is a detail coming from an ex-groomwhich at the very least suggests a strange coincidence.


Apart from speculation is there any evidence to suggest Hutchinson is lying?

Obviously, if there had been cut and dried evidence on ANY of the various subjects, then JtR would have been caught. Finally, we can only take Hutchinson's own word for it ...or not.

There are things that I find odd - particularly hanging around for an hour -

Damn right - it's odd !!

but then I'm not George Hutchinson and whereas in my mind I would have gone and had a beer or something it's not a stretch to believe that in Huthinson's mind he found some value in hanging around that had nothing to do with the murder.

But WHAT exactly ?- He'd walked miles back from Romford, it was cold, drizzly, the yard was black & grimy and ugly, and the hour was very late.

People are very different (obviously) and projecting what you would have done onto another person is fruitless for obvious reasons - unless of course you know that person well and have a reasonable basis for predicting his/her thinking.

This is true -and something that we ALL (that is my detractors too), should bear in mind.

In terms of the anti-semitism - it's easy to link Hutchinson with anti-semitism simply because there was 'groundswell of opinion'. You have to come up with some evidence that Huthcinson was anti-semitic
If he made up 'Astrakhan man' he described him as he sort of rich ostentatious jew as lampooned in the newspapers in racist 'cartoons', for one thing. His description of the 'suspect' was presumably designed for the police to question people with that appearance.

- as opposed to he must have been because of the views of other people. You see I could point to the fascists who marched in East London in the '30s and they were met by far greater numbers including local Jews - so 40 years later East End Jews were in the majority thinking rather than there being a groundswell of opinion against them.

I can't really understand this paragraph -it's very ambiguous. I can say that where I live in France, the areas where the 'National Front' (le Front National)
get the most votes, are the areas where the North African population are strongest. I would not have imagined that you would have as much antisemitism in the population in Devon, say, as in Whitechapel, and no risks of race riots.

To be honest Ruby - for any speculation to be believable it has to be based in some sort of fact at its core. And you're not presenting any evidence that people can use to build a case round Hutchinson lying or being anti-semitic.

Lets put it this way -no one is convincing me of the contrary. Infact the case leans strongest towards Hutchinson lying rather than not. The case leans towards the fact that JtR wanted to pin these crimes on the jews, and Hutchinson wanted to point the police in the direction of a jewish suspect.
I think that if you read this whole thread, and hopefully we will get to read Ben's article, there IS evidence on this.

The best you offer is that there is no record of anyone else seeing the well dressed bloke - and you have a point there. Sounds unbelievable - particularly where you want to build a case round it. But it could have happened - depends on where the well dressed bloke had been for the night. Now presumably he wouldn't be hanging round in the pubs - it's possible he turned up in a cab
This sounds like the Royal conspiracy !! So, no witnesses to that cab, eh ?
How many people in Whitechapel could afford a cab ?

....or I dunno..had an overcoat wrapped up tightly and then we he met the victim he opened it up to display his wealth.

Oh, come on ! and people accuse me of 'fantasies' ! Of course, you're right -
it COULD be that, but it's much more PROBABLE that Astrakhan Man didn't exist, isn't it ? And the 'horse shoe' detail is screaming 'figment of Hutchinson's imagination'.

Of course this is speculation - the point I'm making is that were you to sit down for 2 minutes you could list 10 possible reasons why Hutchinson is recorded as the only bloke who remembers seeing the other bloke

-list them ! (really believable ones)

- and all of them would be just as grounded in fact as your anti-semitism theory.

-well, I don't think so !

[DVV]

Hi Rubyretro,

out of curiosity, how are you going to trace "Hutch the Groom" ?
Seems completely hopeless to me.
Good luck anyway.

Amitiés,
David

[Rubyretro]

My opinion would be Ruby that there is a certain amount of looking for a mystery - that is the starting point/the objective - an objective that seems to lead the 'evidence'.

Yet what Hutchinson says is not so unbelievable. Apart from speculation is there any evidence to suggest Hutchinson is lying? There are things that I find odd - particularly hanging around for an hour - but then I'm not George Hutchinson and whereas in my mind I would have gone and had a beer or something it's not a stretch to believe that in Huthinson's mind he found some value in hanging around that had nothing to do with the murder. People are very different (obviously) and projecting what you would have done onto another person is fruitless for obvious reasons - unless of course you know that person well and have a reasonable basis for predicting his/her thinking.

In terms of the anti-semitism - it's easy to link Hutchinson with anti-semitism simply because there was 'groundswell of opinion'. You have to come up with some evidence that Huthcinson was anti-semitic - as opposed to he must have been because of the views of other people. You see I could point to the fascists who marched in East London in the '30s and they were met by far greater numbers including local Jews - so 40 years later East End Jews were in the majority thinking rather than there being a groundswell of opinion against them.

To be honest Ruby - for any speculation to be believable it has to be based in some sort of fact at its core. And you're not presenting any evidence that people can use to build a case round Hutchinson lying or being anti-semitic.

The best you offer is that there is no record of anyone else seeing the well dressed bloke - and you have a point there. Sounds unbelievable - particularly where you want to build a case round it. But it could have happened - depends on where the well dressed bloke had been for the night. Now presumably he wouldn't be hanging round in the pubs - it's possible he turned up in a cab....or I dunno..had an overcoat wrapped up tightly and then we he met the victim he opened it up to display his wealth. Of course this is speculation - the point I'm making is that were you to sit down for 2 minutes you could list 10 possible reasons why Hutchinson is recorded as the only bloke who remembers seeing the other bloke - and all of them would be just as grounded in fact as your anti-semitism theory.

Mac -I spent some time writing this reply to everybody in general, before I read this interesting post. I shall post the reply (which is 'large') first, and then reply to you specifically ......I just want to say a few things here to defend myself and my theories, because it is totally unjustified to write me off as a fantasist, as my ideas are perfectly plausible, and I quite take exception at some of the accusations aimed at me here...It seems to me that the minute people can't reply with a coherent argument, then they resort to insults..

I find it incredibly ironic that in trying to refute my ideas they unwittingly confirm them n
-" approaching the police by a killer, to assist them is nothing new, we had a rather unpleasant individual by the name of Neville Heath in the 1940s who tried to be clever in doing precisely that" Richard. FACT: we have a precise case where someone has done exactly as I'm saying Hutchinson did .
-"He could just as easily have come forward to the police and provided them with a very generic, vague description of the killer" I totally aunbelievable that Hutchinson was not gree with you Adam. FACT: The fact that he didn't is of great interest.
".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..." DVV -yes, thanks, I had forgotten that one.
"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" Mac -well, of course you're right. So it's still more only the sole person to notice him in Commercial Road but, incredibly, the only person who saw him or some one resembling him, in Petticoat market.
"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".Hunter -FACT :NOT everything is based on supposition (his presence at Millers Court at a crucial time, his delay in coming forward as a witness, his description of Astrakhan man, his description as an unemployed 'groom' and labourer, his links with Essex). That supporters of him as a "suspect" stand out as being 'staunch', suggest to me that his profile as JtR is VERY convincing. "
"If,and I say If,Hutchinson needed an alibi,then placing another man in her room would be an ideal choice,and the choosing of an individual so different in dress and ethnicity,a thoughtfull consideration.Not a unique idea.The'Other man did it alibi'has been around a long time,and looked at closely what other reason could he give for being there.A murder was committed not more than thirty yards from where he stood.A man was seen there.There is no evidence of witnesses that it was Hutchinson,but could he be sure that attention would not at sometime be directed against him." Harry. FACT
Here are some FACTS : -Hutchinson gave a witness statement to the police. Hutchinson described a jewish suspect. The police amended his description to 'foreign looking' as they felt the jewish description was inflammatory. Hutchinson described a rich or at least 'flashy' man. Hutchinson described the man he saw with MJK as having a gold pin in the form of a 'horse shoe'. Hutchinson is described as being an un-employed groom and labourer. Horse shoes and grooms suggest a link of horses. If Hutchinson was lying in his description of the "suspect" he saw -that is the invention of a 'horse shoe' tie pin -the fact that he was an ex-groom MIGHT have a significance. Hutchinson had been looking for work in Romford, Essex. There is a link between 'horse shoes' as a symbol, and the Company of Farriers in Essex.. Grooms use a knife or knives which have one straight blade and one hooked blade ("hoof pick") -this is true of the 19th century, as now. Grooms are shown in 19th century pictures as wearing peaked caps or bowler (billycock) hats. The Police thought that JtR would have some knowledge of anatomy. A groom working on a stud would have the ocassion to see animals 'put down', die, be cut up (I was a sheep farmer for some years, and I have some experience of breeding animals).
To be honest, I could go on for ages stating these verifiable FACTS (please all go and check those statements, which are just a whilly-nilly selection of FACTS from my arguements).
Links that I've made between those FACTS are qualified by phrases like 'I bet' 'I guess' 'I wonder'...I am not pretending to have the 'answers'. I have clearly stated 'I believe' -where the FACTS support my statement. Please, please, please go verify....
The thing that I find really 'Mad', is that people state that Hutchinson was an acquaintence of MJK all the time -yet THAT isn't a FACT at all !! We only have Hutchinson's word that he knew MJK, had even met her before, let alone slipped her a few shillings. I have no opinion on that -I wouldn't know. I don't believe that Hutchinson told the truth in his witness statement about his reasons for being in Miller Court that night -only that he was there. I believe that he was lying, and I'm very interested in his choice of lies to tell.
As for Adam and Michael -it's just like big school bullies to lob insults at the new girl and then run away without seriously addressing valid arguments...
Anyway I have to tell you all here that I am trying to trace Hutchinson the groom -he hasn't been found up to now, but that doesn't mean that he won't be. I'll be keeping you informed of any interesting FACTS that I find...

[DVV]

Fleetwood Mac,

why don't you read the inquest papers and police statements before posting ?
Thereafter you could have a look at Bob Hinton's book, or Garry Wroe's.

Amitiés,
David

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Frank....

Hi FM,

his description was clearly far more detailed than the average description. In that way his description is an exception.

Which on its own means nothing and can be explained - just as much you could suggest this makes his testimony suspect. In other words - could go either way and wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Secondly, Hutchinson’s account doesn’t disclose any reason for being there, but it does present a larger-than-life suspect.

On it's own doesn't give us anything. Like you I find a bloke hanging round for an hour a touch odd - chief reason being that I wouldn't do it but then I'm not George Hutcinson so not in a position to judge him on the basis of what I would do. He could quite easily have been waiting for his turn - as plausible as anything.

Thirdly, his account fits exactly with Sarah Lewis’ account and timing of a man standing across from the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Corroborates his account then. This on its own is no reason to doubt him.

Wonder if you could help me out here Frank - did she give a description of him?

Fourthly, he only came forward after Lewis had given her account.

Assuming this is factual then it is indeed problematic but can be explained in that a) he wasn't aware of it b) he was aware of it but was going to come forward anyway c) he was never there and fancied some attention.

In other words - there simply isn't enough evidence to make him a suspect - and stringing together a few issues which could be disputed doesn't change this. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law - in fact it wouldn't even get to court and that has to be the acid test.

I wish there were an obvious reason, but, seen in light of the facts, there is none either way.

Agreed.

That’s just it. I have little doubt that he was there between 2 and 3 a.m. doing exactly what he and Lewis said he was doing, but it’s perfectly possible he was innocent of Kelly’s murder and only came forward when he did to prevent becoming a suspect.

All the best,
Frank

Presumably Lewis's sighting fits roughly with the time of death?

Of course - there will be people who were mistaken in what they thought they saw and what time they thought they saw it. It would be useful were evidence to turn up and categorically discount some of these statements.

Cheers Frank.
















QUOTE=Frank van Oploo;129523]

Fourthly, he only came forward after Lewis had given her account.

[/QUOTE]

Assuming this is factual then it is indeed problematic but can be explained in that a) he wasn't aware of it b) he was aware of it but was going to come forward anyway c) he was never there and fancied some attention.

In other words - there simply isn't enough evidence to make him a suspect - and stringing together a few issues which could be disputed doesn't change this. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law - in fact it wouldn't even get to court and that has to be the acid test.

[QUOTE=Frank van Oploo;129523]

I wish there were an obvious reason, but, seen in light of the facts, there is none either way.

[QUOTE]

Agreed.

That’s just it. I have little doubt that he was there between 2 and 3 a.m. doing exactly what he and Lewis said he was doing, but it’s perfectly possible he was innocent of Kelly’s murder and only came forward when he did to prevent becoming a suspect.

All the best,
Frank

Presumably Lewis's sighting fits with the time of death?

Of course - there will be people who were mistaken in what they thought they saw and what time they thought they saw it. It would be useful were evidence to turn up and categorically discount some of these statements.

Cheers Frank.

[DVV]

I see no problem with Lawende and co testimony, whereas Long, Schwartz, Hutch do raise questions.

Amitiés,
David