Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The fact remains that we have a witness statement tying a person that fits Hutch's description to a crime scene at the crucial time. We have a person admitting that he is that suspect, fitting the description, and with spurious story."

Please, Ruby, we have been over this before. We have no such thing as anybody tying Hutchs description to the crime scene! I am perfectly happy to debate all of the material adhering to Hutchinson - but this is no such material, period.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

My post:

“Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong?”

Bens answer:

"Of course it could"

Thanks, Ben - I needed to hear that, since you have earlier voiced the opinion that there was no other reasonable interpretation to what happened than yours, and since you stated that there never was any doubt about what "later investigation" meant in this context.

NOW I will merrily leave it at an agreement of a disagreement!

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

I wouldn't want to advance myself on that, Nathalie..although I think there is something 'different' about the MJK killing, and I get the feeling that her killer /Hutch knew her-even if I open my mind to entertain doubts that they weren't one and the same; for one thing I think that he knew that she now lived alone, and he wouldn't be interrupted if he got into the room.

But 'great chutzpah', and daring, fit's with my idea of the Ripper's personality -allied with self preservation.

Hi Rubyretro, But maybe the killer of Mary Kelly wasnt the ripper,who seemed to prefer operating in the open air!
It may have been part of his obsession to plant himself at the police station and keep "in touch" with her through the fall out from her murder!

[Natalie Severn]

posted by Claire:

My lingering doubt, however, is due to the question of whether GH was 'simply' obsessed with MJ and couldn't give up that obsession, even after her death, or whether that was all part of his own murderous activities

Well Claire,I would see it as a crime of passion---jealousy and obsession, rather than a premeditated act of murder,ie if Hutch committed the murder.But if Hutch was actually Fleming,then it wasnt very long before he was sectioned---thank goodness.
Norma

[claire]

That would be my interpretation, too, Norma...and that would have to, for me, distinguish it from the other murders, as you note in your reply to Rubyretro. Seems to me that, although all the murders, Stride aside, could be characterised by anger, an obsessed Hutchinson would also, in a warped kind of a way, be a man capable of, and consumed by, love. Seems to me that that is quite different from the look of the others.

However (there always is a 'however' with these cases, aren't there?), would you then consider the removal of the heart to be a copycat, or a natural progression of the 'broken heart' trope? I've no idea; just working through the potential psychologies of such a killer.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,I think Claire,that the descriptions of the victim"s injuries were spread throughout Whitechapel where there were neighbours who had attended inquests such as John Richardson and his mother in Hanbury Street.The fact that Annie Chapman"s uterus had been taken and Kate Eddowes kidney was missing etc was well known by the 9th November so if Hutch/Fleming was the killer of Mary,he could have focussed on taking the heart because it symbolized complete control of her libidinous life at long last!

[The Good Michael]

My a$$ really hurts from reading this Hutchinson nonsense. Look, there are those who have believed in Hutchinson's guilt from the get-go, and nothing can change their minds. They have created a new set of logic based upon assumptions. The cart has indeed been placed before the horse and the cart is going nowhere. That is the same as the Hutchinson debate. Little details, that have no bearing upon Hutchinson's guilt or innocence, are cast aside just in case they could cast a shred of doubt upon his guilt. They do and they have, but the pro-hutchers ain't buying it. It saddens me that people can be so unidirectional. But, there you have it and there we are. The cart still ain't going anywhere, so I'm just taking my horse and leaving.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

You know, Mike, I don't think that it's only Hutch-ites that have a favourite 'theory'..

..I do read all the other Threads , and there are people who believe equally in Tumblety, or 'conspiracies', or believe that one or several of the murders were domestics and not Ripper killings at all.

There are plenty of people who construct 'profiles', and everyone -without exception -'speculates' somewhere. It is inevitable, because we have a myriad of disparate and often contradictory evidence to go on. What is one person's 'pure fact', might be open to different interpretations.

It seems natural to me that when one reads everything about the case, one forms an opinion. This site is to share opinions, and research (but even research is selective and open to opinion...I'm thinking of the MJK/Tottenham type thing). When you give an opinion and people debate it, you have to defend it -either the arguments convince you to change your mind, or they harden those opinions.

I personally relish reading people like Fish, even if I don't agree with him (well, I totally agree with 'middle aged' being 30ish), and Ben's answers, because I'm always open to their arguments, but I find Ben better informed and more convincing.

If people have no opinion on the matter, that is perfectly fine as well.

I have personally backtracked on alot of my former opinions, because I have accepted that other people have stronger arguments -but in the case of Hutch, and the C5, the pros still outweigh the antis for Me.

[Ben]

The cart still ain't going anywhere, so I'm just taking my horse and leaving.

Well saddle up and off you trot then, Mike.

But you said all this a few posts ago; that you were sick of all these nasty Hutch-hasslers and wanted nothing more to do with these threads, but beack you seem to have come. This had been an enjoyable and courteous exchange so far - amazingly so for Hutchinson threads, but then contrary to your complaints, I haven't seen anyone trying to convince anyone else here of his guilt or innocence. At least, not for a good few pages.

So, with respect, I feel the exasperation is deeply misplaced here and best reserved for Toppy threads.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

Whatever. End of discussion.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I personally relish reading people like Fish ... but I find Ben better informed and more convincing."

I´m sure you do, Ruby!

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

lol, so much for the ceasefire...and so much for this thread staying interesting. Now, I imagine it's back to the wild theories again, and so long to anyone who won't play ball? Pass the (red) hankie, then.

[ChainzCooper]

Preach it Michael, preach it
Jordan

[caz]

Blimey, Hutch was a man, standing around for ages in the cold and the wet (if he wasn’t lying about doing so) and, assuming he was Lewis’s lurker, looking like he was waiting for someone. Now we can either imagine that he was hoping for a freebie from a woman he knew, who was back on the game now Joe was gone and the rent arrears were getting silly (while she was still getting silly on the booze), or he was madly, deeply, passionately in love with this feckless alcoholic prostitute and about to rip her up in a rit of fealous jage, remove her heart and presumably pocket the money she had just been paid by whichever satisfied customer had got him so wound up while he had to wait outside for nearly an hour.

I know which one I find the more plausible, but it’s fine to explore possibilities when we know so very little about Hutch and what was making him tick when he told his story.

Hi Ben, All,

This was arguably the one murder, above all the others, that the police wanted to solve, and quickly, and I just don’t believe that Abberline and co would have dropped Hutch and his account like a hot brick without first being satisfied (not merely suspecting) that he had not after all witnessed and described the last man to enter Mary Kelly’s room before she was found carved up.

Ben, I see you have very sensibly narrowed the Lewis sighting down to two possibilities: the police either believed that she had seen Hutch, very close in time and space to this horrific murder (and therefore he had to remain a person of interest, particularly if their doubts concerned his claim to have been waiting for the man he described or for the reason he gave); or they had reason to doubt he was even there to witness anything at all, and concluded that he was just another publicity-seeking time waster.

I am somewhat surprised, however, after all that has been said on this subject, to find you favouring the latter possibility, because IMHO it leaves you with even less chance of pinning the murder(s) on Hutch. How could the police have had doubts about Hutch being Lewis’s lurker if that’s precisely who he was? Do you see the problem here? Why would they have entertained such doubts, never mind gone with them, when this was such an unmissable opportunity to put this individual close to the scene by his own admission, and while they had him in the palm of their hand, and to screw every last detail from him about his business there and who else he saw?

The fact remains that we have a witness statement tying a person that fits Hutch's description to a crime scene at the crucial time. We have a person admitting that he is that suspect, fitting the description, and with spurious story. We then have the spate of murders stopping.

No, there are no definitely ascertained facts here, Rubyretro. Quite apart from the fact that at least two, if not three more East End unfortunates would be murdered by person or persons unknown, and for no obvious motive, over the next two and a quarter years, we now have Ben quite rightly arguing that it’s entirely plausible that the police made no connection at all between Lewis’s full description of her lurker and the man in front of them calling himself Hutchinson and claiming to have been there in the same time frame. The most obvious explanation for this would be that he didn’t fit Lewis’s description, which could only have added to any doubts that he was actually there when he said he was. I can’t see him being dismissed as a ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ merchant if he bore even a passing resemblance to the lurker as described by Lewis - can anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

You have just reawakened the beast!

Good luck.

Mike