Yes Ben, I agreed that Packer wouldn’t have been suspected. It looks like Violenia was though.
There were good reasons why Packer wouldn’t have been suspected (i.e. his shop was there and he was with his wife). These corroborative details are missing for Hutchinson which is precisely why it is likely that the possibility of his involvement in the crime would have flickered across the mind of the dullest detective. The possibility certainly occurred to various journalists.
You repeat the line that the police focussed on “foreigners, madmen, butchers and doctors, but rarely local gentile types”.
While this seems so from press reports and the memoirs and reminiscences of senior officers, the coppers on the ground were as often to pick up local gentiles. As I have previously related, take a look at a random press report in the aftermath of Kelly’s murder and you will see account after account of local gentile types being taken in from lodging houses on the slightest grounds (they acted ‘suspiciously’ etc). I would add ‘lodging house dweller’ to your list as the police had an obsession that the culprit probably lived in a lodging house. We also have the example Inspector Neil (under another guise) saying the culprit may have lived in the Victoria Home! I would take this as another reason why the police would have taken a long hard look at Mr Hutchinson!
“there is only a compelling circumstantial case for one of them having lied about his reasons for loitering fixatedly outside a murder scene shortly before that murder’s commission. That puts him in a much "firmer" position as a possible culprit”
I agree there is a circumstantial case (but not very compelling). That is precisely why it is unlikely the police will have dismissed him with a hearty ‘cheerio’.
In my opinion Kelly was not the last victim, so I don’t think he stopped either. But there is an inherent contradiction between these two possibilities:
• Hutchinson stopping because he was nearly caught.
• Hutchinson stopping after he inserted himself deliberately in the investigation.
Did he insert himself for kicks or did he get unwillingly roped into the investigation? Clearly he could have avoided being roped in by keeping his head down or moving to another nearby area via that trusty medium, shank’s pony. That is why when we had this discussion before, Ben you argued that he inserted himself.
If he inserted himself that almost certainly wouldn’t frighten him into quitting as it would have inflated his ego – he had fooled the coppers! That is how it works.
On Sally’s point on the contradiction between Hutchinson and Cox - it is easily explained by time – about 2 1/2 hours difference and appearances. Both could be telling the truth but if Hutchinson was then Cox’s blotchy man wasn’t the culprit.
The Echo article appeared on 13th – the day after Hutchinson appeared in the evening following the inquest. It must have been written very soon after his appearance. Indeed the ink can barely have dried on Abberline’s glowing report on Hutchinson.
And remember there are press reports from as late as 17th November which spoke of Hutchinson’s as a reliable witness.
The Echo story doesn’t seem to tally as the day the report appeared Hutchinson went to see the corpse and also went out with a policeman again searching for the A-man.
Maybe one policeman (who perhaps favoured the Cox story) didn’t believe Hutchinson from the outset and briefed against him.
There were good reasons why Packer wouldn’t have been suspected (i.e. his shop was there and he was with his wife). These corroborative details are missing for Hutchinson which is precisely why it is likely that the possibility of his involvement in the crime would have flickered across the mind of the dullest detective. The possibility certainly occurred to various journalists.
You repeat the line that the police focussed on “foreigners, madmen, butchers and doctors, but rarely local gentile types”.
While this seems so from press reports and the memoirs and reminiscences of senior officers, the coppers on the ground were as often to pick up local gentiles. As I have previously related, take a look at a random press report in the aftermath of Kelly’s murder and you will see account after account of local gentile types being taken in from lodging houses on the slightest grounds (they acted ‘suspiciously’ etc). I would add ‘lodging house dweller’ to your list as the police had an obsession that the culprit probably lived in a lodging house. We also have the example Inspector Neil (under another guise) saying the culprit may have lived in the Victoria Home! I would take this as another reason why the police would have taken a long hard look at Mr Hutchinson!
“there is only a compelling circumstantial case for one of them having lied about his reasons for loitering fixatedly outside a murder scene shortly before that murder’s commission. That puts him in a much "firmer" position as a possible culprit”
I agree there is a circumstantial case (but not very compelling). That is precisely why it is unlikely the police will have dismissed him with a hearty ‘cheerio’.
In my opinion Kelly was not the last victim, so I don’t think he stopped either. But there is an inherent contradiction between these two possibilities:
• Hutchinson stopping because he was nearly caught.
• Hutchinson stopping after he inserted himself deliberately in the investigation.
Did he insert himself for kicks or did he get unwillingly roped into the investigation? Clearly he could have avoided being roped in by keeping his head down or moving to another nearby area via that trusty medium, shank’s pony. That is why when we had this discussion before, Ben you argued that he inserted himself.
If he inserted himself that almost certainly wouldn’t frighten him into quitting as it would have inflated his ego – he had fooled the coppers! That is how it works.
On Sally’s point on the contradiction between Hutchinson and Cox - it is easily explained by time – about 2 1/2 hours difference and appearances. Both could be telling the truth but if Hutchinson was then Cox’s blotchy man wasn’t the culprit.
The Echo article appeared on 13th – the day after Hutchinson appeared in the evening following the inquest. It must have been written very soon after his appearance. Indeed the ink can barely have dried on Abberline’s glowing report on Hutchinson.
And remember there are press reports from as late as 17th November which spoke of Hutchinson’s as a reliable witness.
The Echo story doesn’t seem to tally as the day the report appeared Hutchinson went to see the corpse and also went out with a policeman again searching for the A-man.
Maybe one policeman (who perhaps favoured the Cox story) didn’t believe Hutchinson from the outset and briefed against him.
Comment