Soliciting or night attack.

[DVV]

Hi Chadwick,

Hutchinson stated that he didn't have any money. He may have been telling the truth, which would result in no bed for the night at the logings.

That's not the reason he gave. He said he entered the VH as soon as it opened, in the morning...

Since it was already closed, he may well have been standing out there waiting for Mary Jane Kelly's customer to leave so he could see if he could stay with her. He said he had given her the odd bob or two on odd occasions. Maybe he was counting on her good will. It was a cold and rainy night. Who woulldn't want a warm spot for the night?

Yes, that's a possibility. I'm even of opinion that Mary let him in...

He claimed to have looked into the Ripper's face. Much has been made over the idea that he may have been Jewish, but that doesn't address what we may have been feeling if we had looked into his face... and the Ripper looked into ours... The mere fact that the Ripper knew that Hutchinson could possibly identify him may have been the reason he hesitated in going forward. That he thought he saw him, may have had a chilling effect, as well.

Disagreed. Hutch himself told the press that he was searching the guy with the police. Hardly the words of a frightened man.
Not to mention the incredible Sunday sighting.

I read with great interest and admiration Gary Wroe's piece regarding the Ripper.

So did I. One of the best suspect-based books ever written.

I think Hutchinson was telling the truth.

How can you, my friend ? I would more readily say he was innocent... But "telling the truth" ? - clearly not Hutch's business. Astrakhan Man is an obvious fabrication, an obvious scapegoat...
Once again, what about the Sunday sighting ? Would you believe this ?

I think Hutchinson saw the Ripper.

Indeed. Everytime he combed his hair in front of a mirror.

He said he was pale. He may not have been Jewish. I think there is room for more investigation.

He said he was pale. Then he said he wasn't. In any case, Jews can be both.


Amitiés Chadwick,
David

[Lina]

That could well have been so, Garry. Only, the spout of the kettle was melted from the heat of the fire and the kettle would have boiled dry.
So if we imagine that he used water from the kettle to wash off, then he must have started to fuel the fire (wich would have been very hot) after washing himself, and this (kind of) rules out that he was working in its light. Would you agree? (Unless, of course, bloody water was found somewhere in the room. Like in that jug, for instance, if there was one.)
This makes me wonder why he would have made the fire so great? Was he working in the dark, or was that one candle they found in the room enough for him?
I am not trying to make any particular point here. Those remnants of fabric found in the ashes puzzle me a great deal and I'd like to know why they were there. Was there nothing better to burn than her clothing if he was trying to light the place up? What else could have been the purpose of burning them?

/Lina

[Hunter]

Hi Lina,

The normal fuel for fireplaces in city dwellings, coal, would burn more efficient and slower than say, wood, and produce less flames for light. The garments would burn quickly and emit more light. I don't believe there was any water in the room. The killer could have used the garments to wipe himself off, then dispose of them in the fire.

Also, I don't believe he would have used the water pump outside, but as on previous occasions would have tried to vacate the immediate area quickly for his own safety. After Eddowes he did just that and disposed of the apron a safe distance away.

Of course, I'm the odd man out here because I don't believe Mary was killed by an intruder who would risk a possible locked door and someone else in the room with Mary. I agree with Sox's earlier point that he killed prostitutes because they were easy targets. All of that , however, has been previously discussed in detail by both sides on this thread.

[c.d.]

I watched the movie "In Cold Blood" the other night. A very good movie and a very good book based on a true story. A family is murdered and the immediate number one suspect is the boyfriend of the daughter based solely on the fact that he was the last person to see the family alive. He was not the murderer but that is where the police had to start. Unless the police in 1888 were total idiots, Hutchinson had to be the number one suspect for Mary's killing regardless of the fact that he came forward on his own. Since he was never charged and seems to have vanished from the investigation, I can only conclude that the police were satisfied of his innocence. Take that for what you think it is worth.

c.d.

[Chadwick]

Declaration?

Hi Chadwick,



That's not the reason he gave. He said he entered the VH as soon as it opened, in the morning...



Yes, that's a possibility. I'm even of opinion that Mary let him in...



Disagreed. Hutch himself told the press that he was searching the guy with the police. Hardly the words of a frightened man.
Not to mention the incredible Sunday sighting.




So did I. One of the best suspect-based books ever written.




How can you, my friend ? I would more readily say he was innocent... But "telling the truth" ? - clearly not Hutch's business. Astrakhan Man is an obvious fabrication, an obvious scapegoat...
Once again, what about the Sunday sighting ? Would you believe this ?



Indeed. Everytime he combed his hair in front of a mirror.



He said he was pale. Then he said he wasn't. In any case, Jews can be both.


Amitiés Chadwick,
David

David,

Appreciate your comments. Always open to learn from everyone.

I've been a victim of armed robbery and had the perpetrator actually stare menacingly through the shop window at me later, as if warn me not to say anything. I can tell you from experience, that it is a rather unnerving thing. In my case, no one was reduced to raw meat, so I can't imagine how disturbing the experience might have been for Mr. Hutchinson.

One hundred and twenty years on and analyzing from the safety of our computer chairs gives us no feel for the terror of that time.

So, maybe I read too much into this, but I would expect there would have been some trepidation, if he really did look into the Ripper's face; that he could be watched, stalked, even eliminated. Given that he had to go down and look at Mary Jane's mutilated body, it could have had chilling effect on him. It would have on even the best of us. It was right of him to search for him with the police, and to tell you the truth, it would be the ONLY way I would look for him. Safer. I can expect he was looking over his shoulder and worried about closing his eyes at night.

Gary validates my view by making his assertion that the ONLY reason Hutchinson, as the the Ripper, went to the police was because someone had seen him out there and he looked suspicious.

I ask, based on what evidence?

Another point he makes is that Hutchinson had Mary's key, since he probably slept with her and had stolen it. Again, based on what? There was really no need for a key, was there? How did she get in that night? How did she get in any time? She opened the door by unlatching it through the broken window pane. Hitting the door with a pick axe was probably unnecessary.

I guess I just can't see, based on the little information we know about this man, that he is the Ripper. What was his history before the murders? What happened to him afterwards? There's nothing.

After all the build-up in the e-book, though, after all the information of how a man like this is created, springing George Hutchinson out of the blue, with none of those elements in play, seems perposterous. He then expects someone else to start investigating this guy to make the case?

The Ripper had demonstrated his own fear. Several weeks had gone by between the last murder and this one. It's not unreasonable to think he felt the atmosphere too charged for him to feel safe. He chose a woman who could entertain him indoors, giving him the opportunity to commit the crime unseen, uninterrupted. He didn't want to get caught.

It may be conjectured that this was the reason the murders stopped. The uproar over the brutality and the fact that he was seen, may have driven him to another, less "hot" environment.

It's not the wonderful, extensive research and excellent writing with which I take issue. It is the conclusion that ignores all that went before and then begs for someone else to do the research to prove that conclusion that bothers me.

If I missed something that established him equal to the likes of Bundy and Dahmer, let me know.

Best,
~Chadwick

[Garry Wroe]

After all the build-up in the e-book, though, after all the information of how a man like this is created, springing George Hutchinson out of the blue, with none of those elements in play, seems perposterous. He then expects someone else to start investigating this guy to make the case?

At the risk of appearing evasive, Chadwick, the issues you have raised regarding Hutchinson and, for that matter, my book, are inappropriate for the present thread. If you’d care to re-post to one of the existing Hutchinson threads or even create a new one of your own, I’d be happy to respond.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[DirectorDave]

I have always had a problem with the idea that mary was killed while asleep.....she is laid out in the same manor as other victims.

While I do not discount the possibility she was killed in her sleep I don't think the fact that she was found in bed lends any creedence to that theory.

[Garry Wroe]

The positioning of Mary Jane’s body, I would suggest, DD, was one of those ritualistic components which, when taken in combination, comprised the killer’s crime scene signature. As such, it brings us no closer to determining Kelly’s movements and behaviour in the hours immediately preceding her death.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I’m rather bemused by some of the sentiments expressed here.

I can guarantee you that a modern police force seeking to establish the identity of a serial killer is not generally in the habit of deciding what “terrible specifications” the miscreant must have before constructing a circumstantial case against anyone who seems to fit the bill, irrespective of whether they have any connection – physical or otherwise – to the crime or crime scene. Fitting up any old known ruffian with history of violence and an obvious external menace isn’t a particularly laudable investigative strategy because all too often, the real offender turns out to be someone who is altogether more adept at blending into society and adopting an outwardly “normal” persona, and yet unlike the known dodgy geezers, these superficial “average Joe” types often end up giving the game away with a piece of direct evidence linking them to the crime. Investigative priority must therefore be focussed upon those with a physical connection to the crime or crime scene, and it is from these investigations that a history of “psychopathology” may then be discovered. Not much use expecting the grisly past of the killer to turn up on a plate.

Dennis Rader had a physical connection to the BTK murders, which led to his arrest. Prior to that event, it is very unlikely that anyone would have suspected him, and there was certainly no established history of “psychopathology” or violence, at least not in the public domain, or else he would have been very hard pressed to pull off his veneer of family man and work colleague, which he did for many decades. Certainly, if the investigative authorities had limited their search to those with known “terrible specifications”, Rader would have slipped the radar. Obviously, Rader’s bizarre fetishes became known in the fullness of time, but they certainly weren't out in the open at the time of his arrest, and we might reasonably expect a similar scenario with the Whitechapel murderer.

The more sordid details associated Rader’s background and personality only became accessible courtesy of the type of modern research methods that would not have been available in 1888, when DNA and meticulously catalogued files on specific individuals would not have been remotely feasible. As such, the very notion that “If X or Y individual from 1888 was a miscreant, we’d know about it by now” is frankly very naïve, and I sincerely hope that nobody is “eliminating” perfectly legitimate suspects on such a demonstrably flimsy basis. What we can say, instead, is that X or Y is an individual whose behaviour would warrant close investigation if not outright suspicion by a modern police force, but unfortunately, the police in 1888 were unlikely to have been in a position to convert those suspicions into a tangible result with regard to guilt or otherwise of the crimes.

It’s also slightly optimistic to eliminate any suspect who has yet to be “established...equal to the likes of Bundy and Dahmer”. Again, the full extent of the depraved history of both Bundy and Dahmer only became apparent as a result of investigations that were triggered as a result of direct evidence linking them to the crime or crime scenes – investigations that would not have been possible to conduct in 1888 given the paucity of research options.

A few other observations:

- No witness (take Lawende, for instance) who was requested to accompany police round the district in seach of their suspect was likely to have had the option of saying no, lest they be accused of obstructing police business and engaging in general silly buggers. As such, we can hardly congratulate any witness for being acquiescent in that regard.

- The idea that the killer disrobed prior to dispatching Kelly is only plausible in a scenario that doesn’t involve the killer dressing up in lots of layers and with numerous pointless and imprudently displayed accessories. This applies also to the notion that he went elsewhere after Whitechapel became too “hot”. If he didn’t advertise his presence and whereabouts in an ostentatious fashion, this would never have been a problem. And if he “didn’t want to get caught”, again, remaining as inconspicuous as possible was an option, as opposed to doing the precise opposite.

- I would strongly advise against accepting witness testimony that was discredited by the police and reported by the press (take Packer, for instance).

- The Victoria Home (1888 residence of Joseph Fleming, Henry Turner and others) was never “closed”. It was open throughout the night and the morning for any lodger in possession of a weekly or daily pass that would have been purchased in advance. Otherwise, the well-known and well-established cut-off point was 12:30am to all other lodgers.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

Ah, Profiling. That has been dicussed on other threads and the press and the police did its share of doing just that based on the presumtion of what type of individual would fit the bill- in their minds- and it got them nowhere. As Ben points out, it rarely gets them anywhere today without hard evidence to help create a profile that would only then, possibly help narrow the search; and only after the killer continues in his spree for a considerable length of time. That's not what happened here.

I have never subscribed to any suspect theory.I find that subscribing to such can sometimes cause one to be less objective in discerning the plausible aspects of the case. This is not a blanket indictment, for I have read several suspect based books that have not deviated from the facts to reach their conclusion. Of course, we all have read those that did. In my mind all of the known suspects are based on little evidence and a lot of supposition. If I chose to implicate someone on as serious of a charge as murder, without their ability to defend themselves, I would need more evidence than is available at this point

Having said that, as far as Mary Kelly is concerned, Hutchinson, for whatever reason, did interject himself into the case. He places himself at the crime scene. His story is suspect by any intelligent reasoning because of its very nature. If he told the truth, he may have intended to rob the man he said he saw after he came out and just got tired of waiting. The man's description may have been completely different than the one given to police. But even that explanation would not be the whole truth. Some light would have been shed on this if we knew the extent of the police interrogation. Nowdays a "witness" such as this would be suspect as well and questions would be asked as to his recent history. If this was done, and Hutchinson was cleared, it has been lost with the rest of the files. Abberline makes no mention of it.

As I've said, I have never had any suspect in mind and I can't reasonably ascertain what Hutchinson's motives were, but I can't buy the well dressed "toff" story for the same reasons that both Ben and Garry have discussed, and in the long run I don't think the police did either. As I've stated before, I believe it was wishful thinking on Abberline's part, initially- the same as with Schwartz.


Sorry this is off topic of the thread.