Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ruby!

I´m caught up in some research here for the moment, so I must refrain from commenting on your post. Interesting to see, though, that you are beginning to question Hutch in another fashion!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"A mate and I had a signal if we were going to meet at a particular place.
I would say,"If I am there first I will put my hat on the wall,if you are there first you take it off""

Ha! Great stuff, Harry! Hats off to you ... No, wait a minute here ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish :
I'm not going to continue with the speculation on why Hutch was thrown out of the enquiry -we'll never know. I think that it's unlikely that he made a genuine mistake on the day though -he would presumably he know when he went to Romford and came back. So if he wasn't there, then I think that he lied (I don't think that he lied though -because I do think that he was 'wideawake'). I also think that it might be hard for the Police to prove where he was conclusively anyhow, with no street/security cameras.

Still, I don't believe for one second that A Man existed (at least, that night in Whitechapel), although Dave has shown that there were toffs in the area. I don't see how Hutch could have taken in all those details in the dark -and looking at his feet, jewellery and face at the same time. Why such a man would leave his coat unbuttoned on a cold night..and the coat would surely mask the watch ( which would be on a waistcoat, under a jacket , under the coat.)..is unbelievable. And why would he go to poor prostitute's room in a place like Miller's Court with that jewellery anyway ? -especially with Hutch breathing down his neck (close enough to hear the conversation). .
Try looking at contemporary photos of Dorset street and the entrance to Miller's Court, and imagine A Man there -happy to go down that dark little passage.
How would Hutch have the night vision to see the red colours ? Surely this Toff wouldn't live in a vacuum either -he'd have tradesmen, a servant, a job, if not a family...but no one recognized his description, although the watch and the tiepin in tandem made him very identifiable. He'd also be moving, standing side on, standing with his back to Hutch sometimes -not standing full on , allowing himself to be clocked by a labourer. The 'jewish villain' ("very surely looking"),
and the red handkerchief offered to Mary, would appear to be made up to link this 'personage' with the idea of JtR that the public had.

No wonder that Abberline quickly changed his mind about the Statement (one can imagine the comments that his collegues and superiors might have made, after considering it).

I no longer believe that Hutch even met Mary on the street that night -I used to believe that part at least. Consider, his description of her as being a 'bit spreeish' , when asked if she was drunk. We know from other witnesses that she WAS drunk -and I'd believe Hutch more if he said "she seemed sober enough to me" or "I didn't notice'. Instead he hedged his bets and tried to avoid putting his foot in it. I don't think that he'd want to be seen in public with a woman that he was planning to murder either.

[harry]

Hi Fish,
A mate and I had a signal if we were going to meet at a particular place.
I would say,"If I am there first I will put my hat on the wall,if you are there first you take it off"

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

Thanks for that; thimbles, no less!

But what I was asking for, was more some sort of signal system belonging to the unfortunates who had rooms of their own, and with the purpose to show men out in the street that they were open for business. A system that did not alert people to the presence of unfortunates in the street, but instead employed by prostitutes living inside a room or apartment, ready to service clients coming from the outside.
Do you know something of this?

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Thimble Tapping

Fish,

Thimbles were used by Victorian prostitutes who use to tap on window sills, windows, door etc to signal their prescence.

And low, what was found on or around Stride and Eddowes?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Here´s a question for all of you who are better aquainted with the ways of the unfortunates in Britain.

Here in Sweden, back in the early 1900:s, the prostitutes who had rooms and apartments of their own, used a signal system to let their customers know whether they were open for business or not. Typically, they would put a light in the window when the coast was clear, and put it out when it was not.

I imagine other signals may have come into use too - curtains open or closed, etc.

Did this apply in Britain too? Does anybody know?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"that being said, you beleive that GH's A-man is probably more fiction than fact too?"

Yes. And no, not necessarily.

Here´s the thing: I lean more and more towards George Hutchinson not being identical with Wideawake man - I am everything but sure that he was even in Dorset Street on the night. We know that his story was not believed by the police, but we do not know why.

We cannot see any interest at all in George Hutchinson on behalf of the police after they had let him go. He was thus reasonably cleared from suspion attaching to the crime itself, the way I see it.

In his memoirs, Walter Dew suggests that Hutchinson was wrong on the day he was in Dorset Street. To me, this would help immensely in explaining what happened - if it could be substantiated that George Hutchinson was one day off, and if the police could ascertain or at least come close to ascertaining this, then we would have a very trivial story.
We would have a very good explanation to why Hutchinson did not turn from witness to suspect - because he was never even there.
We would have a very unsexy story, making it easy to see why the papers did not expand on it.
We would even get a neat explanation to why Kelly, who had been very much drunk and obviously prepared to drink more at midnight, suddenly was only a bit spreeish two hours later - because it was NOT two hours later, it was 22 hours before!

And how does my yes/no suggestion in answer to your question apply?

Well, we know that Dew does not say that it was positively proven that George Hutchinson was one day off - he only suggests that this may have been the case. And we know that George William Topping Hutchinson had told his son Reg about having met a man giving the impression of being like lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly on the night she died. So evidently, if George William Topping Hutchinson was identical with George Hutchinson the witness - and I am totally confident that he was - then he held on to his claim of having met a very posh man in Dorset Street on the murder night. The conclusion that this man was Astrakhan man becomes unescapable.

So yes, placing Astrakhan man in Dorset Street on the murder night was bogus, it would seem. But placing him there on the night before was perhaps not bogus at all! He may well have existed - but in that case, it seems he was unrelated to the murder.

And if there was a disagreement inbetween Hutchinson and the police as to what night he was there, then Hutchinson may have felt less inclined to speak to all and sundry about his meeting with "Jack the Ripper". He may have settled for only disclosing it within a circle of very close friends and family, perhaps avoiding to add that the police never believed him.

Looking upon it like this, I think the bits and pieces fit together eminently. I even believe that I may persuade Richard, who has always spoken up for believing in Hutchinson, identifying him with Topping and looking upon him as a family man who would not lie to the police, much less kill. Maybe this is the simple solution to it all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"Whats your take on Lewis's black bag man? You think there is any chance he's the one? According to lewis he was around alot talking to various women and was creepy enough to scare her and her friend. She said the night of the murder she saw him again on the corner of Dorsett. maybe he met up with MK at some point previous and/or that night."

I think he correponds far too well with the generic description of a killer with a Gladstone bag and a high hat to keep me happy, Abby. But sure, if he was what Lewis said he was, he belongs to the picture. And he is around at the same stage as Wideawake is around - or so Lewis said.
But tall tales were also around in the aftermath of the Kelly deed. Sugden describes how a journalist who arrived at the murder site after Kelly had been discovered, only to have half a dozen women telling him that they had been around to hear somebody cry "Murder" in the middle of the night - apparently they had picked up on Lewis´and Praters story, and found it colourful enough to tell it once again, starring themselves.

Actually, it is easier to believe in a man that Lewis could not describe, than in one that is described in very vivid detail, at least as long as that detail has something of an evil fairytale to it. One must, of course, ponder that IF Lewis was telling porkies about the man with the bag, she could well have been telling porkies about Wideawake´s existence too. But funnily, the lacking description - later becoming a very vague one - saves the day for me in that instance.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Thanks for the response. Seems like there was alot of dastardly villains around that night.

Actually, it is easier to believe in a man that Lewis could not describe, than in one that is described in very vivid detail, at least as long as that detail has something of an evil fairytale to it

Then, that being said, you beleive that GH's A-man is probably more fiction than fact too?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"Whats your take on Lewis's black bag man? You think there is any chance he's the one? According to lewis he was around alot talking to various women and was creepy enough to scare her and her friend. She said the night of the murder she saw him again on the corner of Dorsett. maybe he met up with MK at some point previous and/or that night."

I think he correponds far too well with the generic description of a killer with a Gladstone bag and a high hat to keep me happy, Abby. But sure, if he was what Lewis said he was, he belongs to the picture. And he is around at the same stage as Wideawake is around - or so Lewis said.
But tall tales were also around in the aftermath of the Kelly deed. Sugden describes how a journalist who arrived at the murder site after Kelly had been discovered, only to have half a dozen women telling him that they had been around to hear somebody cry "Murder" in the middle of the night - apparently they had picked up on Lewis´and Praters story, and found it colourful enough to tell it once again, starring themselves.

Actually, it is easier to believe in a man that Lewis could not describe, than in one that is described in very vivid detail, at least as long as that detail has something of an evil fairytale to it. One must, of course, ponder that IF Lewis was telling porkies about the man with the bag, she could well have been telling porkies about Wideawake´s existence too. But funnily, the lacking description - later becoming a very vague one - saves the day for me in that instance.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Ben:

"If the killer was the man in the wideawake, and you’ve acknowledged this to be a strong possibility, then there must have been at least some degree of pre-crime planning involved, inasmuch as either the location or victim were selected at least some time in advance. "

Stands to perfect reason, Ben. As does the suggestion that wideawake WAS the killer. Personally, though, I am in no way certain of it.

My stance is that Kellys killer knew her, and I think he arrived later than both Blotchy and wideawake. I don´t think Kelly had any customer as he arrived, nor that she had had any for some significant time.

As for wideawake man, I think we need to be doubly cautios before dubbing him the killer.
To begin with - and I have said this before - we should not take it for granted that wideawake was Hutchinson. Therefore, we do not know how long he stayed in place, nor do we know how "sinister" his "surveillance" should be regarded. Some or much of the tantalizing factor in it could owe to Lewis embellishing, since she full well knew what had happened to Kelly.
To carry on - let´s not forget that Kelly was not the only "unfortunate" in Miller´s court. McCarthys rents was a place were there would have been lots of punter traffic. Wideawake could well have been just a john taking a glance up the court to see if the busness was still on!

No matter what, he of course remains an interesting bid for the killer´s role.

"I think the Bundy comparison is apt; the only difference being that Jack had far fewer opportunities in terms of transport and concealment opportunities."

... and that counts, Ben, no doubt. But at the very least there were doorways and recesses along Buck´s row, that would hve offered some rudimentary sort of concealment, but no - bang on the street. I still say that the absolute and total lack of any effort to hide and conceal tells an important story.
Whether he opted for the gate in Buck´s Row or not remains an open question - that he never got round to using it does not. That´s what keeps me on the other side of the fence we´re at, Ben - but it´s fascinating to throw the occasional glance over it.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
My stance is that Kellys killer knew her, and I think he arrived later than both Blotchy and wideawake. I don´t think Kelly had any customer as he arrived, nor that she had had any for some significant time.


Whats your take on Lewis's black bag man? You think there is any chance he's the one? According to lewis he was around alot talking to various women and was creepy enough to scare her and her friend. She said the night of the murder she saw him again on the corner of Dorsett. maybe he met up with MK at some point previous and/or that night.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If the killer was the man in the wideawake, and you’ve acknowledged this to be a strong possibility, then there must have been at least some degree of pre-crime planning involved, inasmuch as either the location or victim were selected at least some time in advance. "

Stands to perfect reason, Ben. As does the suggestion that wideawake WAS the killer. Personally, though, I am in no way certain of it.

My stance is that Kellys killer knew her, and I think he arrived later than both Blotchy and wideawake. I don´t think Kelly had any customer as he arrived, nor that she had had any for some significant time.

As for wideawake man, I think we need to be doubly cautios before dubbing him the killer.
To begin with - and I have said this before - we should not take it for granted that wideawake was Hutchinson. Therefore, we do not know how long he stayed in place, nor do we know how "sinister" his "surveillance" should be regarded. Some or much of the tantalizing factor in it could owe to Lewis embellishing, since she full well knew what had happened to Kelly.
To carry on - let´s not forget that Kelly was not the only "unfortunate" in Miller´s court. McCarthys rents was a place were there would have been lots of punter traffic. Wideawake could well have been just a john taking a glance up the court to see if the busness was still on!

No matter what, he of course remains an interesting bid for the killer´s role.

"I think the Bundy comparison is apt; the only difference being that Jack had far fewer opportunities in terms of transport and concealment opportunities."

... and that counts, Ben, no doubt. But at the very least there were doorways and recesses along Buck´s row, that would hve offered some rudimentary sort of concealment, but no - bang on the street. I still say that the absolute and total lack of any effort to hide and conceal tells an important story.
Whether he opted for the gate in Buck´s Row or not remains an open question - that he never got round to using it does not. That´s what keeps me on the other side of the fence we´re at, Ben - but it´s fascinating to throw the occasional glance over it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Correct, Ben. But the character of the deeds leading up to Kelly mostly speak of haste, both in decision and execution.”

I don’t think so, personally, Fish.

If the killer was the man in the wideawake, and you’ve acknowledged this to be a strong possibility, then there must have been at least some degree of pre-crime planning involved, inasmuch as either the location or victim were selected at least some time in advance. I think the Bundy comparison is apt; the only difference being that Jack had far fewer opportunities in terms of transport and concealment opportunities. With regard to the murder venues in the Whitechapel series, I’ve always argued that he was making the best of a bad job, and that he couldn’t have found privacy in an “abandoned building” even if he desired such a location, and he probably did.
Any abandoned building not securely locked was likely to be targeted by the homeless, given the intense overcrowding in the district. As you’ve also highlighted, the likelihood of a prostitute following any punter into these really secluded areas must be regarded as slim, with most women probably selecting the general area themselves.

I certainly don’t detect any “preference” for the “open streets”. Tabram was murdered in an indoor stairwell, Chapman in a back yard and Kelly in a private room. In addition, it seems likely to me that the killer first targeted the stable entrance at Buck’s Row with a view to committing the crime once inside, and if Stride was a ripper victim, it’s clear that her killer attempted to entice her into the darkened yard. Mitre Square technically fits the description of an “open street”, but barely so. It was the darkest corner of a small square, and probably chosen by Eddowes herself, rather than her killer.

I’ve argued this rather extensively elsewhere, but I see no evidence that Jack’s “preference” was for the open streets. I consider it far more likely that he simply made the best of limited options, and "optimized" his security was far as was practiable.

“Nor do I think that the killer staked Miller´s Court out, planning, waiting and watching, since people who plan, wait and watch are people who either change the odds to their own benefit, or at least choose to step in at the exact right time.”

I’d argue that the killer was just such an individual. His demonstrated ability to evade capture cannot be attributed purely to luck, and as for choosing the “exact right time”, he hardly did a bad job of eluding the various policeman on beat at the Bucks Row and Mitre Square murders. It’s a matter for personal interpretation, of course, but I wouldn’t describe the Nichols murder as “explosive”. I believe he posed as a client, and probably accompanied her from the Whitechapel High Street. In others words, not at all at odds with “the cool, calculating planning present in the Hutchinson-did-it-scenario”.

“But that, of course, is just me. I´m fine with others disagreeing”

I echo that sentiment, Fish, and would note that we’re rather wildly off topic here.

Best to draw a discreet veil over this now, and save it for the “Was Jack organized or disorganized?” threads!

“My contention is that he knew Mary Kelly and the circumstances under which she lived, and that he simply went to Miller´s Court unnoticed in the late night”

Now this I do agree with, apart from the “unnoticed” bit, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"he wanted to put Police and public on the wrong track by choosing the murder spots that he did."

But when he killed in Buck´s Row, Ruby, he put the police on the RIGHT track, since he kept on killing in public spots. Or are you saying that he tried to cement the picture of a disorganized killer, before the distincton had even been made?
I´m not following your reasoning here, so feel free to elaborate.

"I can't see him going to the room and knocking on the door, since Mary might just tell him to 'go away' without opening the door"

She might, yes - or she might say "Oh, murder!", open up and let him in after some persusasion on his behalf.

One more thing - if he knew Mary Kelly and had visited her before, then he had at each occasion obviously done so without killing her. That means that there is a fair chance that he did not come to kill her this time either. If his killings were the results of swiftly taken decisions with no or very little planning, then we must realize that the same thing could apply to Kelly too. The decision to kill may very well have come about after he had been let inside.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I think that Dave has pointed out very well that there is a learning curve and a progression to the murders, so that the Nicholls murder was more opportunistic than Kelly's, and probably not planned at all.

I very much like Bob Hinton's analogy with the golfer complimented on his 'luck' in getting a wonderful shot and replying -"yes, and the more I practise, the luckier I get..".

As you know, I think that the sites were very important to Jack, and he didn't go for lonely construction sites etc, because he wanted to put Police and public on the wrong track by choosing the murder spots that he did.

I think that MJK's murder was very important to him, because he had got a taste for mutilation, but frustratingly never had enough time or light to have free reign before.

I can't see him going to the room and knocking on the door, since Mary might just tell him to 'go away' without opening the door -which would make it harder to get in stealthily, if she was awake. Likewise, if he knocked and she opened the door and said 'no', she might fight and scream blue murder if he tried to force his way in. A 'wary mary' with walls and a door between herself and a man outside, would give too much scope for her slipping through his fingers.

I think once the plum of a lone woman in her own room was within his sights, he wouldn't want to run the risk of losing her (and that opportunity of getting Mary alone might not quickly come again).
The best way was not to leave her the choice of letting him in or not, but to catch her unawares within the room and use his superior strength -and a knife -to kill her as quickly and silently as possible.