An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That possibility does not make him the killer of Mary Kelly though.

I never implied that Hutch could have killed MJK. Au contraire, the hypothesis put him there for another reason, one he could be reluctant to admit.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped. I can also see why Hutch might big up the man's bling in case he was forced to admit his real motives for following the couple. His 45-minute wait would look all the more credible if his target appeared to be of above average means for the district.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks. You resumed my train of thoughts more eloquently that I could.
(sorry for grammar, not English speaking, and didn't have my coffee yet.)

[caz]

I'm not sure that a meaningful motive has been established for Hutch in killing MJK. He could have been a vagrant - he certainly seemed to have a tendency to walk the streets at night and maybe was just looking for some shelter. Accomplice - who knows?

Hi Mystery,

There can be no meaningful motive for Hutch killing MJK if he was the ripper. Serial killers do not need a tangible motive to do what they do, and they also tend to be highly resourceful, so they can keep on feeding their habit. I do wonder how many uncaught/unidentified serial killers have seriously struggled to earn, or at the very least beg, steal or borrow enough for the daily creature comforts that would allow them the luxury of murdering women without a farthing to call their own.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Of course, Hutchinson could have killed MJK, i.e. on the basis that he claimed to be near the scene of the crime on the relevant date. However, applying that logic isn't Joseph Lave a stronger candidate for Liz Stride's murder?

Thus, by his own admission he was in Dutfield's Yard, around 20 minutes before the body was found, and walked as far as the gate, i.e. close to where Stride was discovered. There was also no one to confirm what he did once in the Yard, or who he may have met.

Of course, he didn't have to come forward with the information but, given that someone may have seen him leave the club at the relevant time, he probably felt it would be too suspicious not to.

In contrast, we have no clear idea when Kelly died, so it's difficult to determine whether Hutchinson was in Dorset Street close to the time she was murdered. In fact, we have no corroborating evidence he was there at all, apart from Sarah Lewis, but she couldn't confirm the identity of the man she saw. Lave, on the other hand, was definitely in the club that night, so close to the scene of the crime.

I'm not remotely saying that Lave killed Stride, but simply illustrating that the evidence against Hutchinson seems to be extremely weak.

[caz]

Yes, it would be deeply far-fetched because it would require extreme stupidity on the part of both Hutchinson and Astrakhan. If the former wished to conceal his secret "robbing" motive, why risk creating suspicion by drawing attention to such expensive clothes and accessories?

Hi Ben,

But can you see the difference between a secret robbing motive and a secret murdering motive? If Hutch only had the former, but feared being suspected of having the latter, he'd have wanted to make his robbery designs on Mary's client look more convincing than any designs he might have had on Mary herself.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Hypothesis although I hate to use the word as I think its odds on the truth. He was a witness. He hung about Millers Court hoping for a freebee.

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim. He had to rely on Mrs Cox not seeing him again, recognising him and screaming for the police.

Hi Caz.
Happy New Year.

Yes, and compare the description given by Cox, both in her police statement and inquest testimony. It wasn't only Cox who could have identified him, but anyone reading those details could have picked him out.
Yet, he stayed away, never to surface again.

That desperate argument used against Hutch' completely fails when applied to Blotchy. As it would when applied to anyone.

I still wonder if this was no coincidence but a nice little earner for Hutch. He and Blotchy could have known one another and been regular visitors to Dorset Street.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by 'regular'. We don't read of anyone claiming to know this character, or having seen him about often. I would have though some of those press hounds capable of sniffing that out.

The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well,...

I interpret it as him having known her years ago, not that he knew her now, nor Millers Court for that matter. Could be wrong, but thats how I see it.

On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped.

Astrachan looked him square in the face. If Hutch believed he had just stood face to face with the killer (even though Hutch said before the murder that he looked harmless), that might be good enough reason for him to lay low for a few days to think it over.

[Wickerman]

I never implied that Hutch could have killed MJK. Au contraire, the hypothesis put him there for another reason, one he could be reluctant to admit.

Quite so, yes I understand.
There are different accusations thrown at Hutchinson by different theorists.
But I agree, he may have intended to mug Astrachan initially, at least that would justify the wait. Hutch did admit he looked harmless, perhaps what we might call, "low hanging fruit".

By the way, you asked for a copy of an article in the Pall Mall Gazette. I wasn't sure if what I posted covered what you were looking for.

[Barnaby]

Hutch aside, good bet someone would rob Astrakhan man. Which is another reason to believe that there was nobody dressed like that in the first place; most people, including serial killers, aren't that crazy.

[richardnunweek]

Hi .
I am totally convinced that Mr A . knew Mary Kelly, and the meeting was prearranged.
Why it was so, Is the mystery.
For the conspiracy theorists amongst us, was it intended to give the impression that she had fallen into the hands of the traditional bogey man, was the victim of Millers Court already in Room 13?
Has the sighting of a man and a well dressed woman, and a woman not so well attired, seen outside 'The Britannia ', have any bearing on this?
Did MJK, allow herself to be seen that morning, before making off, and I ask another question why?. Alibi perhaps ?
The burning of clothing, the sighting of a woman long since dead according to medical opinion, could well have happened,if the victim was not Mary Kelly.
A remark to a neighbour, that she [ Kelly] was going to ''Do away with herself', alongside telling another, ''That she had a dream that she was being murdered'', and telling Mrs McCarthy, that the ''Ripper was a concern'', along with a couple entering the court that morning, laughing at the reward poster on the wall near the entrance.
All conspiracy theorists ammunition, but is it ''Fact or Fiction''?
Regards Richard.

[Rosella]

A lot of these things Mary was said to have talked about were told to reporters after her death who worked it up into stories riven with premonitions. I wouldn't think that threats to commit suicide would have been that uncommon among the very poor who just dragged out an existence, often not knowing where their next meal was coming from, especially when they were drinking. That doesn't have to be fiction.

I'm sure there were remarks made among Mary and her friends about JTR and how worried they were. There were probably quite a few women in the East End who had dreams/nightmares about the Ripper at the height of the terror so it wouldn't have been that unusual, it just so happened that one of them ended up a victim.

I don't think that there were JTR reward posters up on walls. As far as I remember the only reward offered was that by the MP for Tower Hamlets, but the government were very reluctant to follow in his footsteps. Therefore I do think that the couple laughing about the poster is fiction, and even if I'm wrong and my memory's failed me, there are many callous people around who joke about inappropriate subjects. That doesn't make them co-conspirators in some complicated plot.

[Abby Normal]

Something hit me recently, and I'm probably not the first to come with the idea.

I've been reading The Darkest Streets and The Worst Street in London, just to get some context about pauperism in late Victorian London.

A few things jumped in front of my eyes (unfortunately, I can't remember to which of the two books they relate)
- Garotting: There were several cases where prostitutes would lure men only for them to be welcomed by muggers who would take their money, jewelry and clothes.
- Spitalfields: There was even more resentment in Spitalfields against the Jewish community, mostly because many buildings were bought in the Southern part to be torned down, and housing for Jewish families built instead.
- Dorset Street: people were very suspicious of rich/higher class people on Dorset Street.

Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.

Not saying he was a recurring criminal.

Hi Falstaff
as others have put forth, the idea is not a new one and has been discussed before.

One thing to consider(and I do not believe this idea has been put forth) is that if hutchs motive was robbery, he would have to consider that Aman would have known that hutch and mary knew each other, and therefore Aman could have told the police that-putting hutch AND Mary in hot water.

Not to mention putting a serious strain on the friendship between hutch and Mary.

As in mary being pissed off at him for not only getting her dragged into it, from a police standpoint, but also for messing up her livelihood, if Aman was a client, and or if not, messing up her potential with her Aman as her friend/lover/potential sugardaddy.

[Observer]

Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer, I believe they may have come to think that this man was an accomplice. Now, if they believed the loiterer to have been an accopmlice, then it follows that they did not believe that man to have been Hutchinson.

By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

But can you see the difference between a secret robbing motive and a secret murdering motive? If Hutch only had the former, but feared being suspected of having the latter, he'd have wanted to make his robbery designs on Mary's client look more convincing than any designs he might have had on Mary herself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Not sure what your reasoning here is. if Aman was real, and hutch saw him and mary as he said, then Aman is an important suspect and hutch an important witness. He wouldn't need to change anything about Amans appearance-because what he saw was important enough-Jack the freaking ripper! Regardless of what hutch's original intentions with Aman might have been.

Changing his appearance falsely would jeopardize any opportunity for Hutch to cash in on being an important witness.

And I also don't see why hutch need to be worried about his original secret robbing motive-how would the police be able to force him to reveal it?
Theres a million things he could have said of why he was there and following them, which would have been overshadowed by the fact that he probably saw the ripper anyway!

[Ben]

“Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer”

On the contrary, Obs, there appears to have been a marked silence on the subject of Lewis’ loiterer. She wasn’t pressed at the inquest for further details about his appearance, and I’ve yet to find a single instance of contemporary speculation – from police or press – about his identity. Other Kelly-related suspects, such as Blotchy and the Bethnal Green man, were at least discussed in the papers, but we hear nothing about the loiterer; not that the loiterer himself could have bargained on that outcome.

By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

But in that event, the police would have been in a position to prove the impossibility of Hutchinson's account being true and accurate, as opposed to the "very reduced importance" and "considerable discounting" that he statement was ultimately treated to.

All the best,
Ben