Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

“With the same respect, Ben, we simply differ here - I think that it is an absolute fact that it would be very strange if the connection was never made”

Fisherman, as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t even make sense. There is always going to be subjective debate over what constitutes “strangeness” and to what degree. One’s individual perception of strangeness cannot possibly have a basis in fact, and as such, I regard the sentence; “It’s a fact that X or Y is strange” to be both meaningless and impossible. I personally don’t consider it strange anymore than Garry does. But yes, I intend to embrace fully your suggestion that we’ve exhausted that avenue of disagreement.

Unless!

“You mean that one could not fail to see the connection - but you likewise mean that all of the police and all of the press actuallu missed out. It is an awkward stance, and I donīt envy it.”

I never claimed that the connection was never made. I’ve suggested that it’s entirely possible, for reasons already outlined, that it wasn’t. The extant evidence would suggest that the connection wasn’t made, or at the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was. Again, I must respectfully beg to differ with the assertion that there are two viable possibilities that involve Hutchinson not being the wideawake man. Unfortunately, both suffer from an inability to explain away this coincidence of detail between the Hutchinson and Lewis accounts. Even if she wrongly assumed that the man she saw was preoccupied with the court, it still strikes me as bafflingly odd that a real person would then claim to have been engaging in the activity wrongly discerned by Lewis.

.”..which could have been due to the police not yet having been able to confirm their suspicions.”

But the whole point about the Echo article is that they were outlining the very suspicions that the authorities were harbouring about Hutchinson’s account, despite the fact that they were not confirmed. The doubts were concerned with, amongst other things, the delay in his coming forward and the incompatibility with other witness accounts. If they had a “suspicion” that he’d been elsewhere at the time, they’d doubtless have added this to the mix of “unconfirmed reasons for doubt”.

If one were to take a central bullet point from this current seminar it would be that, in all overwhelming probability, the police were left to speculate and make educated guesses in the absence of concrete proof, and with the latter being such a precious and rare commodity in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, the very worst thing we can do is conjure up invented proof of events that we hope might explain a certain oddity. That’s what I meant when I paid you that genuine compliment that it was uncharacteristic of you to fall into that trap. Whatever they suspected or didn’t suspect about Hutchinson, the likelihood is that they were never in a position to KNOW.

As for Lewis’ man, again, the few indications we have would suggest that his identity was not an investigative priority, and that he was eclipsed in terms of potential “dodginess” by the likes of the Bethal/Britannia man and Blotchy. As such, I don’t remotely share your certainty that Abberline was in hot pursuit of Lewis’ man, or that he instantly made the connection as soon as Hutchinson appeared. For those of us who study the esoteric area that is Hutchinsonia, Lewis’ man is frequently discussed, digested and chewed over, but it appears that scant attention was paid to him at the time, even by the very few that went public with their suspicions of Hutchinson and who were thus in the best position to infer a connection.

“Anyhow, that does not change the fact that NORMALLY when men have to stoop down to have a look at another manīs face, this is due to the stoopers being taller than the men they take a look at.”

Except when the other person is wearing a hat and is attempting to conceal his face with it, in which case it would be “NORMAL” for someone of the same height to stoop down to get a good look.

“And therefore, what little we have points to Hutchinson PROBABLY being a good deal taller than Astrakhan man.”

I utterly reject this, Fish, and I’m rather relieved that this will never enter into mainstream thinking with regard to Hutchinson’s height. First off, my observation concerning the hat is obviously a reasonable one, and if Hutchinson lied about the Astrakhan encounter anyway (there’s a controversial thought!), doesn’t that render this whole issue delightfully moot? No, I’d say that if we disregard implausible coincidence, Hutchinson was PROBABLY the wideawake man and therefore PROBABLY not tall but stout.

All the best,
Ben

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I can see no reason, why that incident could not occur, as if indeed, GH did on occasions help Mary 'out', a favour returned so to speak?
.

Just curious, and an aside to the Great Debate : does any one think this means anything other than he utilized her services when funds allowed ?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fisherman, as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t even make sense. There is always going to be subjective debate over what constitutes “strangeness” and to what degree. One’s individual perception of strangeness cannot possibly have a basis in fact, and as such, I regard the sentence; “It’s a fact that X or Y is strange” to be both meaningless and impossible. I personally don’t consider it strange anymore than Garry does."

The inquest into Mary Kellys death was a very short affair, as you will know, Ben. If we do not count officials like medicos and police officers, nine (9) people were called to that inquest. That was what the joint effort of the coroner and the police had dug up.

Out of these nine, only two offered observations of men that could possibly have been the killer (Cox and Lewis).

Out of these two, only one (Lewis) made the observation at a time that tallied tolerably with the estimated time of Kellyīs death.

After the inquest, but for Hutchinson, nobody came forward to offer any sighting of a possible Ripper at the crucial time.

So, Ben, we have no more than one sighting of a man who was close in both time and space to Kelly at her death. And on top of that, that man was described as watching Millerīs court!

And you, Ben, are suggesting that not a soul in the police force, and not a soul in the press would have been able to realize that if a man came forward, saying that he was in the same spot at the same time, doing the same thing as Lewisīman, then this man would be a contender for being identical with Lewisīman?

It is a complete non-starter, and it baffles me that you fail to realize/admit it. And yes, it IS a fact that it would be odd in the extreme if it had been overlooked, given the parametres involved. It goes way, way beyond any personal interpretations of what is strange and what is not, Iīm afraid, at least on the planet where I spend my time.

"I never claimed that the connection was never made. I’ve suggested that it’s entirely possible, for reasons already outlined, that it wasn’t. The extant evidence would suggest that the connection wasn’t made, or at the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was."

That, Ben, could have been me writing. I am of the EXACT same opinion - but for all the different reasons!

-I too never would not claim that the connection was never made - but if it was, it was very soon dispelled.

-I too would say that it is extremely feasible that it was never made - for reasons involved in either an incompatibility inbetween wideawake and Hutch, or owing to evidence surfacing due to further investigation, as the Echo put it.

-I too would say that there is no evidence that the connection was ever made - but I would never even dream of accusing the police and press of being a band of blind nitwits (and I am not saying that you do so intently, only that this is how I look upon it - phew!!)

"the whole point about the Echo article is that they were outlining the very suspicions that the authorities were harbouring about Hutchinson’s account"

YOUR whole point, Ben. Itīs not even half of mine. I am a journalist, remember, and I have seen thousands of articles where papers have been forced to settle for writing only that the police has seen reason to do this or that - because the police has STATED that they had seen reason to do this or that, and no more. Any journalist would ask, of course, but when faced with a "Sorry, at this stage, we will not go further into matters", there is only so much you can do. You print what you got, full stop. And letīs not loose sight of the fact that the Echo seemingly was the ONLY paper that got hold of this scoop - itīs not as if there was a press conference, mind you. Instead it would seem that a little something was leaked to one paper only, and to get that much must be regarded as a formidable feat.

"Whatever they suspected or didn’t suspect about Hutchinson, the likelihood is that they were never in a position to KNOW."

They did not believe him after a day or two, letīs agree about that. And in that situation they would let him walk if the reason for not believing him lay in a verified belief that he was not wideawake man.
If, on the other hand, they did believe that he WAS there on the night, but did NOT believe that he had told the truth about what he was doing there, then they would reasonably have ... letīs see, what is it you do with men that are proven to have been at a murder site at the crucial time, and who have displayed a suspicious behaviour ...? Hmm ... wait, now I remember: they are sent home, no questions asked!

Iīm afraid, Ben, that I cannot help but to be ironical about this. I will return your compliments and say that apart from all other things that have passed between us, and apart from the very obvious fact that we see things differently at times, I would never claim anything else than a rich intelligence and a solid knowledge about the case on your behalf. That is why I am amazed that you cannot see the almighty flaw in this suggestion. It outsizes an elephant.

But then again, you do not always choose to lean against statistical facts, do you? You agree that men stooping down to look other men in their faces are normally taller than the ones they look at, unless other factors are involved, calling for the stooping (and we have no such factors on record in Hutchīs case). But still, you "utterly reject" when I say that what little we have, points to Hutch being significantly taller than Astrakhan man...? How does that cut?

You can, of course, point to the POSSIBILITY that your "hat" scenario may have applied - but since we have NO information at all lining the stooping thing, as it stands, more points to Hutch being taller than Astrakhan man then against it. It would be slightly "stoopid" and totally statistically unviable to suggest something else, methinks...

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Correction - I just had a renewed look at the Hutchinson statement, and it does say that the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes as he passed Hutchinson - and so it would be "stoopid" of me to press THAT point any further...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson asks:

"does any one think this means anything other than he utilized her services when funds allowed ?"

I think that would depend on how well they knew each other and on what their aquaintance was based. We know that Barnett stated that he had been unable to give Kelly any money at some stage, and that would not have been money for sex in the more direct meaning. The more obvious guess in Hutchinsons case, though, would reasonably be not one of philantropy but of a euphemism. But it may be unwise to regard it as a case closed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish, I won't wade into all these details again, perfectly adressed by Ben and Garry, but instead reiterate why I -in my own personal opinion-I suspect Hutch (and I'm only going to address SOME of the reasons !) :

1) I am convinced by the 'anti-semite' link, and the more I find out about the anti-semitism in London at the time, and the more
I see about the thuggy anti-semite thugs hanging about near those clubs, and the more I see about the actual murder sites -the more I think that I'm on the right track. Infact, I see an escalation by the killer leading up to the GSG (probably egged on by the
anti-Jewish demonstrations, the hysteria surrounding jewish suspects, the Chief-Rabbi having to intervene, and the Police looking for a jewish suspect). The GSG reads like a bit of 'overkill' to Me -just to nail the 'message' home.

Hutch gave a clear Jewish suspect to the Police. Apart from saying 'Jewish Appearence' 'foreign Appearence' he put a horseshoe on the suspect. Once, I saw a clear link with being an ex-groom (and maybe that's true as well), but a friend pointed out to me that if you google 'hamsa horsehoe' (try it) you get lists of jewish jewellery ...and (as our friend likes 'overkill' , he had to add in the 'Petticoat Market' detail..which was' 90% Jewish' ). Infact he was at great pains to implicate a Jew in the Kelly murder.

He also lived right near Goulston, and the site of the GSG was on his way back to his lodging house from Mitre Square.
I wouldn't imagine that he fiddled about in the dark with a bit of chalk...but I bet you that he knew that it was there, if he didn't write it earlier.

He could easily have told the Police -man to man- that he was looking for a 'freebie' from Mary- I don't buy that it would have been either embarrasing nor incriminating -he chose to 'invent' a jewish suspect -and I think that was the important bit for him.

It is true that many people were anti-semite...but they didn't get involved in the case, and give a detailed 'dodgy' description of a fictitious suspect to the Police.

2) If the Police attatched 'reduced importance' to Hutch's statement the next day, and if indeed they had 'proof' that he could not have been where he said he was -then why did they take him to identify MJK's body ? By the time that Hutch saw the body, she had already been identified by Barnett and (McCarthy ? the person escapes Me) -who knew her well. Hutch was
supposedly a mere acquaintance...what did it serve (since the body was nearly unrecognisable) to have an 'acquaintance'
identify a body that had already been identified...could it be to gauge his 'reactions' ? In which case, they may have seen
through the fiction of A Man, but they had not found an alibi to eliminate Hutch.

Abberline may have been a 'seasoned' cop, but I persist in saying that he was only human, and he had his own profile in his mind of the killer, and Hutch didn't fit it.

3) What was Hutch doing on the streets at that hour anyway ? He must have had a pretty good idea of the time that it took to get back from Romford. He said that it was too late for the Victoria Home (he said that he had no money left, but he had apparently saved enough for a doss)...but there were other lodging houses open all night.
Why would he want to be on the rainy streets, after a long walk ?

4) The Police assumed that MJK was a Ripper killing, and surely they would want to know where a suspect was on the nights of the other killings? Yet, it bothers Me that Hutch was supposedly in Romford that night, as far as anyone at his lodgings were concerned (if he had found work, he would not have come back). Therefore, he might have used the same trick before..
leaving town to work, telling everyone about it, and then arriving in the early hours to murder..and only arriving at the Victoria
a day or so later..in which case having nothing to show that he was even in London on the dates of the other murders.
That, added to Abberline's 'gut feeling' might have been enough to get him discounted.

5) People often say -'but he would have been 'Mad' to put himself in the 'hot seat' if he were the murderer' ..but does anyone think that the Ripper was Sane ? He might have appeared so -but he couldn't truly have been so.

That the Ripper blended in with everyone else, didn't fit the popular idea of the 'Ripper', was 'risktaking', 'cool under pressure',
'attention seeking', 'anti-semite', lived in the centre of the Ripper murder sites, frequented prostitutes, was single and kept odd hours, was the right age, was physically strong, had a low unsure income (I'm thinking of the money and rings taken from the victims) is my 'profile'...and Hutch fits it like a glove (and that is without adding in that Hutch claimed to know one of the victims, that he was described variously as an 'ex-groom' and having a 'military appearence'..both of which would give him experience with a knife -if there's any truth in his having been a soldier or a groom-, and the former would give him experience working at night, in low light, performing caesarians -a hazard of birthing valuable foals- and so chopping into wombs of mammals .)

And of course, the murders mysteriously stopped when Hutch became known to the investigation.

I could go on (as you can imagine)...but there is nothing..Fish..that you have said..that puts Hutch out of the picture for Me.., even if he was discounted by the Police

[The Good Michael]

I will just say this: It is absolutely impossible, given Lewis' testimony and Hutchinson's statement, that Hutchinson wasn't checked out and dismissed as Lewis' man. What does this checking out mean? Well, it simply must mean the description given by Lewis had no resemblance to Hutchinson. Unless chimpanzees were on the police force, which seems to be what some folks are suggesting, Hutchinson was checked out and his version was for a time, believed by someone as astute, if we go by Dew's impressions, as Abberline. What the only possibility is if we want to look at Hutchinson as murderer, is that he was a brilliant sociopath who could lie as well as anyone we'd want (or not) to meet. Not only that, but he could (much like Sherlock Holmes) adjust his appearance and height so as not to be accused. This is Joran van der Hutchinson for sure.

Or it's Toppy. But many of us knew that already.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

But Mike..Lewis's description of Wideawake Man was common knowledge by the time Hutch presented himself to the Police. It was taken seriously because she spoke at the inquest.

I don't think that it is coincidence that Hutch placed himself in the same spot as 'Wide Awake Man' , even if he was only a fantasist.

Personally, I don't think that the Police were "chimpanzees" at all, and neither do I buy that they couldn't make the connection.

Indeed, I think that they took his description seriously initially -and didn't think that he was just a 'timewaster', of which they must have had many- it was precisely because he DID match Lewis's description. So they had a corroboration of a witness as to the presence of another witness (as with Lawende). No wonder that they were excited by his Statement.

Why I think that they then discounted him, I have already explained at length.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"but there is nothing..Fish..that you have said..that puts Hutch out of the picture for Me"

So Iīve noticed, Ruby. And in accordance with that, I will not take up too much of your time discussing the matter with you. But I would like to point to your question:
"If the Police attatched 'reduced importance' to Hutch's statement the next day, and if indeed they had 'proof' that he could not have been where he said he was -then why did they take him to identify MJK's body ? "

The process would have been something that took place over time, Ruby. I am not saying that the proof must have been at hand from the outset, and indeed, the Echo article seems to point to a situation where suspicions were nurtured that Hutchīs testimony may not have been all it initially had promised to be. The article does not categorically state that his testimony had been disproven, only that the journey to a (quite) possible discrediting had been embarked upon. And in that context, if the suspicions had been proven wrong, it would have been foolish not to follow up on Hutchinsons material as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. You will notice that Hutchinsonīs journey to the morgue, as well as his police-accompanied travels happen after the Echoīs article, but before the Stars report of a discrediting.

As for the rest of the enigma, I completely concur with what Mike has to say in his post - you do not send potential Rippers on their way without having enough substance for doing so. You just donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

ps Mike -surely the reason that Wideawake didn't become a major suspect, is that even when Hutch was discredited -the Police STILL accepted that they were one and the same.

They didn't need to hunt for Wideawake -they knew who he was, and they
had eliminated him (erroneously, in my opinion).

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
Nothing wrong with that theory, however it means that you cast aside Topping without hesitation , as being the witness.
Let common sense prevail and suggest, that if Topping was the actual GH, then it is almost inconceivable that he was a bloodthirsty monster,that presented himself, as normal as the next man. throughout the remainder of his life.
I know it has happened on occasions, but not this time.
The reason why George Hutchinson was shown the body[ when stiched] was to be certain. that he was describing an encounter with the right person, on the early hours of the 9th.
I have never had a problem, with the description given by Hutchinson, he could only describe what he saw.
For instance if I was walking through a rough estate at night, and across the road I saw a young girl being chatted up, by a guy in really smart clothes, I might find it out of character for the neighbourhood, and if that girl was brutally murdered, i could only report to the police what I saw, what else could I say, its irrelevant that people find it suspicious.
I find no reason to suspect Hutchinson , or in my case [ convinced] Topping as being no more then a witness, that may , or may not, have seen Jack.
But If I am wrong, and if Topping was not the witness, then as I said before its fair play to accuse the unknown Hutch of anything, but remember the only face to the name is on Casebook. and on page 146-147[pictures] of the 'Ripper and the Royals, no other person has named himself.
We only have the late Regs word for it, ?
No .
Other members of his family, Jackie,s father in Law ..Toppings younger brother was aware of it also, also Regs wife believed her husband without reservation.
And someone said the same tale on radio [ dont forget] nearly two decades before Faircloughs book was published, so if that was not Reg, it was someone using his words.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

As for the rest of the enigma, I completely concur with what Mike has to say in his post - you do not send potential Rippers on their way without having enough substance for doing so. You just donīt.

They did with the Yorkshire Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"They did with the Yorkshire Ripper."

And did he, Ruby, place himself in the role of somebody who had acted suspiciously at the place and time of one of the murders? Or do you have any other reason for this comparison?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chava]

Sutcliffe had been flagged as a curb crawler on numerous occasions, and he'd been interviewed because, if I remember correctly, he was working at a plant where a five-pound-note found on one of the victims had been paid out in the payroll. No one knew who had received it, so they interviewed everyone. But he was never prominent in the police investigation and wasn't a 'person of interest'. He didn't step forward and make himself known to the police at any time. They were after someone from the North East because of the 'I'm Jack' audio tape.

[Fisherman]

Exactly, Chava. If, on the other hand, there had been a sighting of a thinnish, medium height man with dark, curly hair and a beard at the time and place of a murder, and if Sutcliffe had subsequently turned up and said that he had been at that place at the given time, but only passing by on his way to a friend living nearby, then the police would have had good cause to believe that he was the man observed, given the likeness in appearance.
And if, after that, it had been discovered that he had no friend living nearby, my suggestion is that the police would have been all over him like a rash. And at that stage, his looks would have been a distinct disadvantage, because the police would not have let him go until they had a plausible explanation to why he had come forward, and - not least - to why he had lied. And of course, if they had not been able to come up with something incriminating, they would have to let him go - but it would not have been a matter of a short time before that happened, and he would have been subjected to lengthy interrogations before it did. And after all of that, much suspicion woud still have attached to him, forcing the police to keep an eye on him fortwith. This is how things work, and I suspect it would have been very much the same 122 years ago.

So no, Sutcliffe does not present any viable comparison with Hutch.

The best,
Fisherman