Open Mind

[Sam Flynn]

In the JtR series, we're looking at what could be an offender going to a "red light district", because that's where his chosen victim type can be found.

There were many such districts in London, and were more like poverty hotspots than "red light districts". For example, Poplar is a short walk from Whitechapel, and had even more prostitutes. I think what we're seeing with the JTR murders is someone who found it easy to find vulnerable targets - whether prostitutes, vagrants or drunkards - on his doorstep, rather than someone going out of his way to frequent a "red light district" as such.

[JeffHamm]

There were many such districts in London, and were more like poverty hotspots than "red light districts". For example, Poplar is a short walk from Whitechapel, and had even more prostitutes. I think what we're seeing with the JTR murders is someone who found it easy to find vulnerable targets - whether prostitutes, vagrants or drunkards - on his doorstep, rather than someone going out of his way to frequent a "red light district" as such.

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear. I didn't mean to imply that JtR necessarily went out of his way all that much, but rather he may have lived outside the immediate area but goes there because it is the nearest place to find his victims. So any easy walk, but he need not live right in the area of Flower and Dean type thing.

The fact he doesn't commit murders in other areas where similar victims could be found could indicate he is fairly close to the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area, so a 5 to 10 minute walk type thing, and if Chapman was killed at the later time, then I would guess closer to 5 then 10. His lack of going elsewhere could mean that this area is so much closer than the next closest that the others are not appealing.

Hmm, if we could plot the other potential areas, that might be something to explore as a way to try to suggest where might fit such a description, and whether or not those areas present anything of interest.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

The struggle with Hutchinson is Joseph Barnett seemingly not knowing him and visa-versa. I've said before, to know Joseph is not necessarily to know Mary but to know Mary means also knowing Joseph and Hutchinson claims to know Mary. Hutchinson and Barnett apparently strangers to each other despite Mary being said to have known Hutchinson longer than Barnett. He's not just a ghost to us, Hutchinson appears to be a ghost to those there at the time.

Excellent post, i totally agree.

The fact that Hutchinson appears only to exist within that social circle through his statement, is enough to make him a questionable witness.
As you say; knowing MJK is one thing, but for him and Barnett (who is proven to have been close to MJK) to have been strangers so to speak; is very odd indeed.

Everything about Hutchinson is peculiar, and in the context of a murder case, that has to be relevant to some extent.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jeff,

I have often pondered how, even at the height of the murders, Jack persuaded women to accompany him. One reason would be that he was an acquaintance that drank with them in the local pubs, and he stalked them after closing and feigned a "chance encounter". Another possible reason that they may not feel threatened might be the following that I lifted from a Jerry Dunlop post in the other place:



Decatur Daily Despatch
Illinois, U.S.A.
19 July 1889

"An ex member of the Metropolitan police,who was standing talking with a friend at the corner of Castle alley, not more than forty yards distant,
about the time of the murder, neither saw nor heard anything."

New York Herald Cable
"The information of police matters possessed by the Ripper seems sufficient grounds for an investigation of such ex-members as spend time in or about Whitechapel."

Best regards, George

Another excellent post George.


The Ex-Policeman angle is something that warrants further scrutiny.

It's the same even today; whilst the vast majority of ex-police officers are no doubt individuals of integrity and deserve respect for their service to society; there are still going to be some bad apples among them.

In terms of the Ripper case, the same must surely apply.

There are a couple of instances that may have had a direct practical impact on the murders.
For example, PC Ernest Thompson, the officer who found Frances Coles under the railway arch just seconds after her throat had been cut... it was the FIRST time he had been on that beat. His very first night.

The killer was undoubtedly disturbed by Thompson, because he heard footsteps moving hurriedly away as he approached the scene; and the fact PC Thompson stated that Coles looked straight at him with her eyes open. She also had a faint pulse, which meant she was still alive when the killer fled.

The issue with people like George Bagster Philips, is that he stated her murder wasn't Ripper related due to the lack of mutilation.
I find that ludicrous, because, despite the lack of mutilation, the official statement given by PC Thompson almost certainly proves that he disturbed the killer, who then had to flee as he approached.
Philips confuses the lack of mutilation with the lack of INTENT of mutilation.

In the case of Frances Cole's killer being disturbed; this COULD be attributed to the fact that it was PC Thompson's first beat through that archway.
What would be good to determine, is whether Thompson was walking a NEW beat, or whether he simply replaced another officer and the beat was already an ESTABLISHED beat.
If it's the former, then perhaps the killer was surprised by Thompson's presence as he approached the archway.

I believe that IF Thompson hadn't been there at that given time, then Frances Coles WOULD have been mutilated to some extent, and she would now be considered an official canonical victim.

But it's not just PC Ernest Thompson who was on their first beat when a murder victim was discovered...

PC William Pennett, the officer who found the Pinchin St Torso; it was also the FIRST TIME he had walked that particular beat.

What's interesting about the Pinchin Street Torso, is the fact that it was dumped under the archway DURING PC Pennett's beat, ergo, the killer chose to dump the torso underneath the archway BETWEEN Pennett walking his circuit.

That would imply that the killer was aware of beat patterns to some extent.

Pennett also testified that his beat was CHANGED at the last minute, implying that another officer would have found the Torso instead.

Is it a coincidence that the man who murdered Coles and the man who dumped the Pinchin St Torso under the railway archway, chose to do so during Thompson's and Pennett's respective maiden beats?

Let's also not forget the proximity between Coles murder under the Great Eastern Railway arch and the Pinchin Steet Torso dumped under another railway arch.

The question is; were Coles and the Pinchin Street Torso found under the same stretch of railway?
Both railway arches
Both during maiden beats

Let's also not forget that Nichols was ALSO murdered next to the railway line.

Perhaps the partially underlined phrase "on the RIGHT TRACK" written in one of the alleged Ripper letters, is more relevant a clue than we care to believe.

The railway
The Board of Works
The fact that Elizabeth Jackson was last seen talking to a man who looked like a "Navvy" (civil engineer who works on the RAILWAY/WATERWAYS) just hours before she was dismembered.

And various witness accounts describing an engineer, a sailor, a Navvy etc...
I believe THIS is where the true identity of the killer is to be found.

The generic dramatic descriptions given by "witnesses" such as Hutchinson, Packer, Schwartz etc... are perhaps all designed to confuse and mislead the investigation.

The link between the Ripper and the Torso Killer comes in the glaring similarities between the respective murders of Coles, Mckenzie, Stride, Nichols, Jackson, Pinchin St Torso, Whitehall mystery.

Incidentally, I have started a new thread "Leap of Faith" that has received no feedback.
However, I have put forward a new person of interest

A man named John Donnelly. He was a Marble Mason who lived in Dorset ST, but had a private workshop in the cellar of 38 Dorset St.

As a Marble/Stone Mason, he was a builder who worked on larger building projects.

I am in the process of gathering evidence as we speak, concerning him having worked on projects for the Board of Works, under which he MAY at some point have worked for George Lusk (Dear Boss) who also worked for the Board of Works prior to the WVC.

I am working on my new working theory; that Donnelly worked on the construction of several large civil service projects, similar to those a Navvy would have worked on, including construction work on the building of the various railway lines and extensions, AND possibly; being a specialist in Stone/Marble, the building of the stone foundations of the New Scotland yard building.
I also believe he MAY have worked on the construction/renovation of Lusk's many theatre-building projects.

At this stage, it's mainly conjecture, but in John Donnelly, I believe I have found a potential NEW candidate for the Torso killer, and possibly the man who murdered/placed his victims UNDER/BESIDE the locations he helped to build, ergo, the Railway arches.

He also can be linked to the suspected murder of his own common-law wife in his workshop cellar at 38 Dorset St, the same address Kidney and Stride stayed at before she left for Flower & Dean St.
Stride lived there with Kidney, while Donnelly worked in the cellar.

Someone also told the police (unconventionally) that he was the man who murdered Stride

John Donnelly

Don't forget, you heard the name of the Torso killer (and possibly The Ripper) here first.

Ha ha!


RD

[Wickerman]

Both photos are taken from the road rather than the pavement.

Yes, we can't place Google street view directly where the black bin is sitting.
The picture is there to try help you understand Hutchinson had a perfect view down Commercial Street, as he said.

The lamp in 1888 was not on the spot where the bin is.

The lamp would have been on the spot between the blackboard and the bottom left corner of bumped yellow paving slabs.

And your source for this is, what?

I'm posting pictures and maps to help you, and all you can do is say "no", but you never post any reason or justification for not accepting what you see.

I could post a photo of the next lamppost northward from this intersection which is directly on the edge of the kerb, beside the road. The next one southward is also on the edge of the kerb.
Which is consistent with the one that is now missing that stood where the black bin is now located.

The ordnance survey maps that show the location of street lamps is the 1873 edition, it appears you have not seen it.
On this map the lamppost is identified as L.P., exactly where I said it should be.



What more proof do you need?
Hutchinson was perfectly justified in saying what he did, your challenge is to come to terms with the facts.

[Wickerman]

Abby, Jeff, Curious Cat...

I'm inclined to agree with you all.

I think the balance between Hutchinson's intentions being benign or malicious comes down to what we know about him outside of the confines of the murder case itself.

Hi RD.
So, you feel that our failure to identify him in 19th century records isn't our fault, it is his?
And, because of this he should be deemed 'suspicious'?

As far as I'm aware, outside of his connection/statement regarding MJK, he is a ghost.

So you don't accept the "Topping" character as being the George Hutchinson that we are looking for?
I'm not saying I do, but if I don't that doesn't mean I should look upon G.H. as a suspicious character.
Look at McKenzie, she was searched for over many years, she was what you would call a 'ghost', yet eventually it looks like she has been found.
It's all a matter of time & records.

For me, that swings the balance from a man who wants to help; to a man who relishes the attention by attaching himself to the case.
I have never believed he knew Kelly well, because NO OTHER witness ever mentions him.

Is that what you call rational deduction?

In terms of Hutchinson, I've always had that niggling feeling that he was involved in some way.
He may have been the accomplice

So, you recognise your own bias, but you don't accept it as such?
This bias is what is driving your suspicions, not fair analysis.

There is some evidence to suggest that for the murders of Smith, Tabram, Stride, and Mylett, an accomplice was involved.

No there isn't, thats just your own mind trying to justify your position in the face of a lack of evidence about Hutchinson.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD.
So, you feel that our failure to identify him in 19th century records isn't our fault, it is his?
And, because of this he should be deemed 'suspicious'?




So you don't accept the "Topping" character as being the George Hutchinson that we are looking for?
I'm not saying I do, but if I don't that doesn't mean I should look upon G.H. as a suspicious character.
Look at McKenzie, she was searched for over many years, she was what you would call a 'ghost', yet eventually it looks like she has been found.
It's all a matter of time & records.



Is that what you call rational deduction?




So, you recognise your own bias, but you don't accept it as such?
This bias is what is driving your suspicions, not fair analysis.



No there isn't, thats just your own mind trying to justify your position in the face of a lack of evidence about Hutchinson.

Hi Jon

Fair comments.


I would only want to clarify, that the evidence to suggest the murders of Smith, Tabram, Stride, Mylett suggest an accomplice was involved, is based on various witness accounts for the lead-up to each of those murders respectively.
It has nothing to do with Hutchinson in that respect.

I accept your comments because your overall knowledge of this case far exceeds my own.

I would only add that the basis from which I state that an accomplice was involved stems from witness observations at the time combined with the borderline obsessive actions made by the WVC to try and get a monetary reward for the apprehension of an accomplice. They appear to have been convinced that an accomplice was involved, possibly because the accomplice was already known to the WVC and it became more of a money-making scheme from a group of dodgy local tradesmen.


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Fair comments.


I would only want to clarify, that the evidence to suggest the murders of Smith, Tabram, Stride, Mylett suggest an accomplice was involved, is based on various witness accounts for the lead-up to each of those murders respectively.
It has nothing to do with Hutchinson in that respect.

I accept your comments because your overall knowledge of this case far exceeds my own.

I would only add that the basis from which I state that an accomplice was involved stems from witness observations at the time combined with the borderline obsessive actions made by the WVC to try and get a monetary reward for the apprehension of an accomplice. They appear to have been convinced that an accomplice was involved, possibly because the accomplice was already known to the WVC and it became more of a money-making scheme from a group of dodgy local tradesmen.


RD

Hi RD.

Two things come to mind - the first official suggestion of a possible accomplice was IIRC in connection with the Kelly case. And, it had nothing to do with someone helping the killer at the crime scene, or keeping watch, that's just a mistake of modern theorists.

The suggestion of an accomplice by the Home Office?, was more to alert the public that someone must know their father, brother, neighbor or tenant is cleaning himself up at home, and/or keeping strange hours out at night on the specific nights of the murders.
If he has a landlady or mother who is aware of his suspect nature then they are regarded as assisting the commission of the crimes if they don't report it, and will be charged accordingly.

It was reasonable for the authorities to assume the killer left Millers Court with bloodstained hands or clothing, so must be cleaning up when he gets home. Someone at home, assuming he doesn't live alone, must have witnessed something that should be reported.

This is a long way from the idea that someone was standing watch in Dorset St., with no hope in hell of contacting his mate in room 13 from over the road in Dorset St.
The idea is preposterous, I'm not suggesting that is where you were going, but others have made that same proposal.

In my view, Hutchinson is just 'low hanging fruit' for anyone to throw an accusation at - jump on the bandwagon to criticize Hutch, when in actual fact they have totally nothing with which to accuse him of.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD.

Two things come to mind - the first official suggestion of a possible accomplice was IIRC in connection with the Kelly case. And, it had nothing to do with someone helping the killer at the crime scene, or keeping watch, that's just a mistake of modern theorists.

The suggestion of an accomplice by the Home Office? was more to alert the public that someone must know their father, brother, neighbor or tenant is cleaning himself up at home, and/or keeping strange hours out at night on the specific nights of the murders.
If he has a landlady or mother who is aware of his suspect nature then they are regarded as assisting the commission of the crimes if they don't report it, and will be charged accordingly.

It was reasonable for the authorities to assume the killer left Millers Court with bloodstained hands or clothing, so must be cleaning up when he gets home. Someone at home, assuming he doesn't live alone, must have witnessed something that should be reported.

This is a long way from the idea that someone was standing watch in Dorset St., with no hope in hell of contacting his mate in room 13 from over the road in Dorset St.
The idea is preposterous, I'm not suggesting that is where you were going, but others have made that same proposal.

In my view, Hutchinson is just 'low hanging fruit' for anyone to throw an accusation at - jump on the bandwagon to criticize Hutch, when in actual fact they have totally nothing with which to accuse him of.

That's a very fair and balanced response Jon.

I agree that it's likely that the killer left Miller's Court with some level of bloodstained hands or clothing.

On that basis, I believe that the killer lived in very close proximity to Millers Court, possibly even Dorset St itself.

I know that criminal profiling suggests that a killer almost always begin their spree closer to home, and then navigate farther afield as they become more confident in their ability to escape a murder scene undetected.
Criminologists are perhaps more likely to claim that Nichols murder was closer to home for the killer and that by the time he got to Kelly, he was further away from home.
However, IF you include Tabram, the geographic criminal profiling picture changes somewhat and then places Tabram closer to the home of the killer than Nichols.

I think the way to explain why the murders appear to follow a confusing and mixed geographical picture in relation to the proximity to the killer's base; is because the killer moved around the area.
This would support the idea that he used various lodging houses, rather than having a fixed long-term abode.

In terms of Hutchinson, I can see why he is often, and perhaps unfairly, a target for suspicion.

He does himself no favours in that respect.
He gives a statement at the 11th hour, as though it's an afterthought.

The issue with the neurological working processes of afterthoughts; is that they almost always comprises relatively minor details that have been initially overlooked, and very rarely consists of concise and detailed vivid accounts.

In other words, IF Hutchinson had turned up when he did and claimed he was at the scene; but subsequently remembered a small detail about a man he saw with Kelly that he initially didn't feel was relevant, but then realized it may be important, and so was now coming forward; then that would make sense.

However, he turns up and gives a fully detailed and wildly vivid description of the entire sequence of events, including an exceptionally vivid description of a man he saw with the victim.
That's not the afterthought of a man who wants to help; it's the actions of a man who wants to get involved and be in the spotlight.

His statement is of similar ilk to Packer's statement.

Packer somehow changed his story, but not through minor adjustments, but through a completely different and concise account of a couple who bought grapes and stood in the rain for over half an hour across the road from him and in full view.

As we know, he only changed his mind AFTER a convicted blackmailer and extortionist got to him and convinced him to give a description of the man seen with Stride.

Packer's and Hutchinson's descriptions are detailed works of fiction that were copied from previous newspaper reports in order for them to jump on the Ripper bandwagon.

Packer's account is very similar to the Coram Street Murder in 1872, when a man seen with the victim bought some items, the key difference being that on this occasion the suspect refused to buy her grapes in such a manner that stuck in the mind of the witness.

Packer's account is based on this, and the fact that Le Grand told Packer what to say, could also by proxy implicate Le Grand in the Coram St murder.

Hutchinson's description is also virtually identical to reports already printed in the newspaper. He is not speaking from memory, he is telling a story.

When you look at Hutchinson and Packer in context, they BOTH warrant suspicion because nothing they say is from memory.

Memory doesn't work like that, but the creative story to fit a pre-conceived narrative does.


The most reliable witnesses are the ones who only recall minor details and not those who can give detailed accounts.


That's a fact of neurological science, and the tales told by both men are works of fiction.


The real killer wasn't the stereotypical accounts given by the likes of Packer and Hutchinson, the real killer IMO looked more like a Navvy or Sailor.

The man seen by Marshall talking to Stride is closer to the real killer.

The man seen by multiple witnesses talking to Elizabeth Jackson just a few hours before she was dismembered, was described as looking like a Navvy.

He was the Torso killer...and IMO, the same man who murdered the canonical 5...aka Jack the Ripper



RD

[Georgeb]

I am reading a book about the BTK killings. One of his last, if not the last, lived in the same neighbourhood as Rader. It was seeing her regularly that inflamed him to kill her. This would suggest that moving further afield is not always the case.

[Curious Cat]

Yes, we can't place Google street view directly where the black bin is sitting.
The picture is there to try help you understand Hutchinson had a perfect view down Commercial Street, as he said.




And your source for this is, what?

I'm posting pictures and maps to help you, and all you can do is say "no", but you never post any reason or justification for not accepting what you see.

I could post a photo of the next lamppost northward from this intersection which is directly on the edge of the kerb, beside the road. The next one southward is also on the edge of the kerb.
Which is consistent with the one that is now missing that stood where the black bin is now located.

The ordnance survey maps that show the location of street lamps is the 1873 edition, it appears you have not seen it.
On this map the lamppost is identified as L.P., exactly where I said it should be.



What more proof do you need?
Hutchinson was perfectly justified in saying what he did, your challenge is to come to terms with the facts.

Funnily enough, it's through the ordinance survey maps I've seen that I draw the conclusion of its position in November 1888.

The lamp was on the edge of the pavement in 1873, as shown in your image. However, it appears to have been shifted closer to the corner of The Queen's Head due to the tramway construction on Commercial Street... which took place throughout 1888. Perhaps it's a detail Hutchinson himself hadn't taken into account.

[Wickerman]

Funnily enough, it's through the ordinance survey maps I've seen that I draw the conclusion of its position in November 1888.

The lamp was on the edge of the pavement in 1873, as shown in your image. However, it appears to have been shifted closer to the corner of The Queen's Head due to the tramway construction on Commercial Street... which took place throughout 1888. Perhaps it's a detail Hutchinson himself hadn't taken into account.

You keep saying things but not showing anything.
The reason I post maps & pics is so everyone knows what I say is accurate.

How can he not have taken any movement into account - now your suggesting he wasn't even there?

[JeffHamm]

Hi RD,

That's a very fair and balanced response Jon.

I agree that it's likely that the killer left Miller's Court with some level of bloodstained hands or clothing.

On that basis, I believe that the killer lived in very close proximity to Millers Court, possibly even Dorset St itself.

I know that criminal profiling suggests that a killer almost always begin their spree closer to home, and then navigate farther afield as they become more confident in their ability to escape a murder scene undetected.
Criminologists are perhaps more likely to claim that Nichols murder was closer to home for the killer and that by the time he got to Kelly, he was further away from home.
However, IF you include Tabram, the geographic criminal profiling picture changes somewhat and then places Tabram closer to the home of the killer than Nichols.

This is commonly presumed, but the literature is mixed on this. Some studies have found earlier crime locations to be closer (I believe Rossmo has published such a finding), but other studies have failed to find this. For example, in Snook, Cullen, Mokros, and Harbort (2005), where they examined case of serial murder in Germany, they found no difference in the home-body recovery location over the series length - meaning, there was no tendency for the early locations to be closer to home than the later locations. Their sample required a minimum of 3 offenses, so they just tested the first 3 crime locations, though, as that ensures all offenders were tested. So basically, what they found was that the first 3 crimes, at least, did not differ in the home-crime distance. Since the typical claim is that the first offense is the closest, with less specific claims being made about offense #2+, then examining the first 3 should be fine, particularly if this were true "nearly all the time".

However, even in studies where this pattern is found, it cannot be described as "nearly all the time". Rossmo (2000) reports that the distance to the offense did tend to increase over time (series), but this only applied to about 1/2 of his sample. The other half showed no such tendency. In contrast, Godwin and Canter (1997) found no change in the home-encounter site distance over a series, but did find that body dump sites decreased over time (bodies were disposed closer to home as the series progressed, rather than further from home).

Obviously, with the JtR crimes, he isn't shifting the bodies, so we don't need to consider that side of things, but just wanted to point out that some have reported distances to get shorter over a series. But what I'm getting at is that the idea that "first is closest" is, like most things that get reported online or in the press, a bit of an oversimplification.

In short, I wouldn't make much of it.

I think the way to explain why the murders appear to follow a confusing and mixed geographical picture in relation to the proximity to the killer's base; is because the killer moved around the area.
This would support the idea that he used various lodging houses, rather than having a fixed long-term abode.

I'm curious what you find confusing about the JtR locations? They are all pretty close to each other, so in roughly the same area really. And they are all close to the two major roads, Commercial Street/Road (running North South) and Whitechapel Road (running East/West). And from Whitechapel, one can get back to Commercial by going passed Buck's Row to Hanbury Street. In otherwords, they all seem on an easy circuit of the main streets. What do you see as "mixed" about that?

...

RD

I removed the bit about Hutchinson as I was just commenting on that first point as I relocated some papers I had read in the past on the matter, so thought I would share that.

- Jeff

[Curious Cat]

You keep saying things but not showing anything.
The reason I post maps & pics is so everyone knows what I say is accurate.

How can he not have taken any movement into account - now your suggesting he wasn't even there?

Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1938 - London Picture Archive
Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1914 - London Picture Archive
Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1894-1896 - London Picture Archive

The point is, it doesn't actually matter where the lamp was exactly if he's making up his story about seeing Mary and the man. It only matters because he said he watched them walk up Commercial Street from that position but in practice it could not have been the case.

[GBinOz]

In other words, IF Hutchinson had turned up when he did and claimed he was at the scene; but subsequently remembered a small detail about a man he saw with Kelly that he initially didn't feel was relevant, but then realized it may be important, and so was now coming forward; then that would make sense.

However, he turns up and gives a fully detailed and wildly vivid description of the entire sequence of events, including an exceptionally vivid description of a man he saw with the victim.
That's not the afterthought of a man who wants to help; it's the actions of a man who wants to get involved and be in the spotlight.

Hi RD,

Debra Arif's post from JTRforums:

Charley Mitchell and another boxer gave an interview in the US for the newspapers there, and the press produced a large article even describing their dress. Both wore tie pins and diamonds and Mitchell had an astrachan trimmed coat. It was a popular style of dress for pugilists of the era, they were very smart men but a little loud in their dress sense and always had the jewellery to go with it. I've also posted pics of Jem Mace in his astrachan trimmed coat and one where he sports a rather large thick gold watch chain and I think horse shoe tie pins were very popular among sportsmen connected to boxing and racing.

Hutchinson seemed to indicate that MJK and Astrachan Man were known to each other. Was McCarthy using boxer's as muscle for difficult rent collections? This would also explain why he was game enough to enter Dorset St.

Cheers, George