Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it’s worth remembering that we don’t know just how much surveillance, if any, took place with Jack’s earlier victims."

Correct, Ben. But the character of the deeds leading up to Kelly mostly speak of haste, both in decision and execution. Ted Bundy is perhaps a useful comparison in many a way, but we know that he typically took of with his victims in his VW, finding himself a spot where he felt secure to kill. He also entered the occasional building, of course, and killed inside, but there are always a number of stages and some obvious planning connected to the deeds. When it comes to the Ripper, it could be argued that even if he did not have a car to bring his victims along in, and even if he did not have a home where he felt at ease to kill inside, he certainly could have chosen more secluded spots than he did, had the will and/or need to do so been there. I think we can agree that there would have been much more secluded places than Buck´s Row and Mitre Square; abandoned houses, construction sites, factory buildings etcetera, where one could reasonably expect to have a lot more privacy.
Of course, as the scare grew, it would be harder to get a prostitute to follow you to such places, but he never seems to have cared about optimizing that sort of security. He preferred the open street to doorways, even, although that choice would have been there. And therefore, I think that the better option it to regard him as being deeply, deeply opportunistic, and not a planner in any noticable extent at all.
And such a stance of course sooner or later leads us to Dorset Street, and what happened there. And to get that deed in line with the others, a useful suggestion would be that Kelly met him on the street, posing as a punter, took him home and had her throat slit (to begin with).

But I don´t think this is what happened, for many reasons.

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. And I don´t see those elements having come into play in, for example, Buck´s Row. I read Claires post, and yes, every deed must be weighed on it´s own contents and differences, but I find the strech between an "explosive" deed like the Nichols killing, and the cool, calculating planning present in the Hutchinson-did-it-scenario too much to bridge for my taste. But that, of course, is just me. I´m fine with others disagreeing, as long as we all can see and recognize the obvious differences.

There is of course the argument that the differences owe to different killers, but that is a sentiment I have never shared - unless we speak Stride ...

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, was quietly let in, no questions asked, no stirring, no noise - and killed her.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

An excellent point there, Claire.

It seems very likely to me that the killer's "pre-crime" approach was conditioned by the sort of factors you outline, i.e. whether or not he was acquainted with the victim, and what sort of domestic set-up the victim had.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

In addition, it’s worth remembering that we don’t know just how much surveillance, if any, took place with Jack’s earlier victims. None of this would negate your suggestion that the Kelly and her victim may well have been acquainted, however.

This is, I think, quite true. There's no reason to suppose the nature of 'surveillance.' I imagine that it would, and must always, differ in quality and quantity according to the victim choice. If MJ was known to her killer, as I suspect, then the type of surveillance would, by necessity, be different to that undertaken for a victim the perpetrator was not as familiar with.

Fish--I didn't think you were suggesting the McCarthy option I just thought I'd save us all the trouble and nip that one in the bud with a suggestion or two of my own...saves the round the houses

[Rubyretro]

Suddenly I seem to agree with everyone !!

my only moot point is that I do think that it's probable that the Police DID find
a concrete reason (for them) to throw Hutch out of the equation -but since we don't know what that reason was, we can't discuss it.

One thing that we can say for certain though, is that the Police have made mistakes in throwing witness/culprits out too soon, in the past (more than a few times).

Therefore we can't trust them to have found something that would withstand
an enquiry today. Although of course, they MAY have.

If we can only decide our point of view based on what we know, then Hutch is still a prime suspect.

[Ben]

“Well, Ben, given the length of some of your own posts, I would prefer "jokingly" to "semi-jokingly", I must say ...”

“Jokingly” it is, then, Fish. I really meant no offence.

“...I much prefer the former suggestion, and I think it is corroborated in part at the very least by the Echo´s information that further investigation was what had resulted in the testimony becoming VERY much doubted”

I realise you’re of this opinion, but I must respectfully beg to differ, In terms of “corroboration”, I believe the lack of certainty expressed in the Echo article tallies incredibly well with the premise that Hutchinson was discredited as a result of an educated police consensus, and not as the result of a big external “something” for which we have no evidence. Whatever form this “later investigation” took, it’s very clear that it didn’t result in proof being secured.

“Much as there is a real possibility that Kelly did take to the streets after her singing performance, I believe that the better bid was that she did not. And if she did not go out, but stayed at home in a partially or gloriously drunk condition, then there is a fair chance that her killer knew her.”

Agreed 100%.

Don’t rule out the surveillance option too hastily, though. Other serial killers have proven themselves capable of resorting to two types of pre-crime approach - the act of engaging their victim through subterfuge, and surveillance of the victims’ homes prior to attacking. Ted Bundy is perhaps the most notorious example, but there are certainly others. In addition, it’s worth remembering that we don’t know just how much surveillance, if any, took place with Jack’s earlier victims. None of this would negate your suggestion that the Kelly and her victim may well have been acquainted, however.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Claire:

"I'm not convinced by any McCarthy threat being sufficient to galvinise a drunk or hungover MJ onto the streets for a few pennies"

Nor am I, Claire - but if I don´t bring the suggestion up, somebody else will. Let´s just call it viable but not very credible for the moment!

The best!
Fisherman

[claire]

Another possibility is of course that the Ripper may have lived in the very near vicinity, and thus he may have been aware of the hunting ground potential of 13 Miller´s Court.

Next up: Kelly may have been pressed by McCarthy to produce at least part of what she owed him - "or else you´re out of here first thing tomorrow".

There is no dearth of possible scenarios. But my bet would still be that the man who killed Mary Kelly knew her quite well.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm not convinced by any McCarthy threat being sufficient to galvinise a drunk or hungover MJ onto the streets for a few pennies--for one, anything she could make between 1 and 9am would be so insignificant in terms of her debt, it would scarcely be worth it. Secondly--in some ways, it's in MJ's interest to move on, to find another room somewhere. Far enough from McCarthy, he'd be reliant on the mini-debt collection agency that was Bowyer et al to track her down and recoup his 29'. So, he may well have told her she needed to make some sort of payment, but I don't think she'd be that troubled by all that--unless McCarthy was known to be in the business of strong arming...and that puts a whole other slant on matters.

As to your last sentence: I agree absolutely.

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, given the length of some of your own posts, I would prefer "jokingly" to "semi-jokingly", I must say ...

That aside, I myself also fancy Claire´s post, but for other reasons - I agree very much that the police would not have let him walk à la Tommy Cooper - just like that - if they had not obtained information that clearly showed that this was a good idea.

And on the part:

"So either they discovered something that confirmed their suspicion he was a fantasist, or they were unable to follow up at all...because he was no longer 'there.'"
...I much prefer the former suggestion, and I think it is corroborated in part at the very least by the Echo´s information that further investigation was what had resulted in the testimony becoming VERY much doubted; it would seem they were near absolute certainty at that stage.

As for the part of Claires post that touches on Harry´s ditto, I think it holds much sense too. Much as there is a real possibility that Kelly did take to the streets after her singing performance, I believe that the better bid was that she did not. And if she did not go out, but stayed at home in a partially or gloriously drunk condition, then there is a fair chance that her killer knew her.

There is of course the alternative that he only knew who she was and where she lived and that she stayed alone after having broken up with Barnett - but that would seem to have taken some surveillance to establish, and from what we know, it does not seem like the sort of thing that the Ripper engages in.

Another possibility is of course that the Ripper may have lived in the very near vicinity, and thus he may have been aware of the hunting ground potential of 13 Miller´s Court.

Next up: Kelly may have been pressed by McCarthy to produce at least part of what she owed him - "or else you´re out of here first thing tomorrow".

There is no dearth of possible scenarios. But my bet would still be that the man who killed Mary Kelly knew her quite well.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

It didn't cause irritation, Ben--more an admission of my recognition that I'd indulged in my usual rambling speculation, walking the boards with my thoughts.

[Rubyretro]

All very true.

[Ben]

Sorry, probably not as succinct as it should have been

It was perfectly succinct, Claire, and I'm very much in agreement with most of the above. My comment yesterday about condensing posts and making them more succinct was directed exclusively at Fisherman, but even then I only meant it semi-jokingly. Apologies for any irritation caused.

But yes, I still think Hutchinson's statement was discredited as a result of "common sense suspicion" which was helped along by his press disclosures.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

Harry, you raise a really valid point. Why would MJ suddenly decide she needed a little bit more money? Okay, it's possible she just decided she fancied a little bit more to drink, but it seems unlikely that, having already had a fair bit to drink (on Cox's testimony), she'd step out into the night in the hope she'd run across someone to ask. It seems to me, too, that she'd need to be very desperate for a drink (and it must only be a wish for drink that could drive her, since--as you point out--she was hardly concerned about her rent) to step out alone, at 2am, with the fear (as testified by various, including Barnett) she had of the killings.

I know this is a suspect thread, and I don't want to drift off that, but it occurs to me that the victimology is also pertinent here, since that can give us more in interpreting the veracity of GH's testimony. She doesn't seem to have a history of lone wandering, being usually in the company of others; she wasn't a drifting part time prostitute in the manner of the previous victims; beyond fancying a drink, she had no reason to be wandering outside at that hour. So, we really have to ask, don't we--is it likely she was out at all?

If she was, we need to accept this sequence of events. She finished off her song to Blotchy around 1am. She then went out, either at the same time he left or shortly thereafter, mooched around in search of money that she presumably had not had from Blotchy for the best part of an hour, before running into GH. Then, luck of luck for her, she ran into someone she knew- Mr A (she must have known him, to have enjoyed a jolly good laugh with him within seconds of him tapping her on the shoulder), and, with Mr A looking very like a punter, GH nevertheless followed them, watching them for three minutes at the entrance to the Court, before they went down to her room. Then, in full understanding that MJ was with a customer, he went down into the court to see if he could see them, and then cleared off--eventually.

Now, not that I'm a person prone to a volte face, but all this sounds very odd. Would a punter quite cheerfully (having given GH a stern look) allow himself to be observed (even if he wasn't intent on doing the woman harm)? And why would a killer imagine all was well in his world and go about his murderous business having been observed by a man keen enough on proceedings to follow him and MJ down the street?

Seems to me perfectly possible that a cool head and a strong coffee the morning after GH's remarkable statement would set alarm bells ringing in an averagely intelligent police officer's mind. Seems perfectly understandable that they would then doubt GH's statement. What still remains unclear to me is why they would then decide that there was nothing at all of interest in GH's behaviour at all, without checking out whether he could really have been there at all, and considering all possible roles he might have played.

I can certainly understand the argument that they found him a bit fishy, and discredited his statement on no more than common sense suspicion. But I still struggle with the idea that they decided he was a harmless nutter wasting police time without at least asking a few questions. So either they discovered something that confirmed their suspicion he was a fantasist, or they were unable to follow up at all...because he was no longer 'there.'

Sorry, probably not as succinct as it should have been

[Fisherman]

Once you read the Echo from the 13:th in detail, it offers more and more insights that are useful to apply on the discussion we have been having on this thread. I would once again like to return to the suggestion that maybe the connection inbetween Lewis´ wideawake man and George Hutchinson was never made. In the Echo, it says, on his statement:

"Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses."

That means that the press, at the very least, adviced the exact same thing that I am advicing now, and for the very same and very obvious reason: once you add a new witness to an investigation, you compare his tstimony with what you already have. And it did not take the Echo 122 years to realize this. It was a matter of hours.

The best
Fisherman

[harry]

I do not know why or when any suspicions of Hutchinson's honesty surfaced,perhaps it was there from the time he entered the police station on the 12th and told his story.My suspicions began the first time I studied his statement,and began with the first element of that statement,the act of Mary Kelly supposedly approaching Hutchinson at 2am on Commercial Street trying to borrow a tanner.Of course the act of borrowing is not physically impossible,but in this case the timing of 2am appears a little abnormal.Here was a woman who had ran up arrears of rent over a longish period,had shown the appearance of drunkeness two hours previously,had enjoyed the company of at least one man the previous evening,but then suddenly at 2am that particular morning ,decides she has to borrow or earn money urgently.For what?
Then this man Hutchinson,who had walked to Romford and back a conservative distance of 24 miles,was so little affected in mind or body that he could observe and memorise, in minute detail in poor light,another person,and except for a period of 45 minutes,continue to walk the streets of Whitechapel the remainder of the night.
And there are people who believe that normal.
Hutchinson states the Victoria Home was shut.Maybe it was ,but that does not mean admittance could not be effected.Passes could be obtained,and I am sure a resident who had just walked from Romford would have been given a sympathetic hearing,even a fool who had,knowing he was going to Romford,failed to obtain a pass.
If people say I don't want to see any evidence of truth in Hutchinson,they are wrong.I do,but there is so little apparent,that I find it very hard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The “demolishing of his antagonists” is a skill he inherited from his mother, no doubt. "

Jesus, Ben - you read me like an open book!

The best,
Fisherman