Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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