Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Chava]

Anything is possible, and I would never totally discount the man Hutchinson as the Ripper, but I would be very surprised if we ever discovered that he was. If for no other reason than Hutchinson appears to be indigent and has no fixed abode. Whoever the Ripper was, he took trophies and I assume he kept them somehow otherwise there would be no point in taking them. If he kept them, he had somewhere to put them. And I'm pretty sure Hutchinson's tramp's bundle wouldn't be big enough or secure enough. The Ripper had a room and at the very least an expectation of some kind of privacy there otherwise he was putting himself at some risk keeping those organs around, and he's not a guy that supports risk after the fact of the murders. Hutchinson, by his own account, was an itinerant. Even if he had somewhere to put the bottles or whatever he preserved the organs in, he would have had to keep it on his person or leave them somewhere where someone else might well discover them.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Always assuming, of course, that the Ripper kept hold of the organs he took from his victims. Perhaps taking them out was "point" enough itself. Maybe he swallowed them at his earliest opportunity, or dropped them down a drain.

PS: Hutchinson's own account doesn't make him any more itinerant than hundreds of thousands of other lodging-house dwellers in London. In fact, the Victoria Home (if indeed he lived there) was a comparatively respectable establishment of its kind.

[Ben]

One may as well ask for examples that prove that serial killers have yellow piss.

Absolutely, Gareth. It goes back to your very apt "Little Johnny" analogy. One doesn't need to be a serial killer to "get their intervention in first, by lying to throw someone off the scent". It's like the kid who was seen near the sweet shop after it was robbed who came forward and tried to blame it on the local fat kid with chocolate smears round his mouth.

Hi JM,

Excellent point about the Milats. I seem to recall it was you who first piqued my curiosity about that case during the Great Hutchinson War of 2006. What I find particuarly fascinating about that case is that Ivan Milat's bogus "witness" account was initially ajudged so detailed that he must have had a "photographic memory"! An eerie comparsion when you consider the number of people who have suggested the same, on occasions, about Hutchinson.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Whoever the Ripper was, he took trophies and I assume he kept them somehow otherwise there would be no point in taking them. If he kept them, he had somewhere to put them.

No reason to think so, Chava.

As Gareth points out, he could have cannabalized them at the earliest opportunity in the comfort of the busy, populated Victoria Home, where hundreds of men were cooking and eating their dodgy meat victuals. He could have committed the unspeakable in front of hundreds of others and remain utterly secure in the knowledge that no "What yer cooking, Hutch?" was even remotely likely to disturb him.

I also think you're quite wrong to assume he must have had a room. If anything, the fact that he killed on the streets suggests he didn't have that luxury, and that he was forced to kill and mutilate in the open, as opposed to a set-up boasted by a Dahmer, Gacy or Nilsen. No reason to assume he killed on the streets because he preferred it.

Regards,
Ben

[Chava]

I think, if you are operating on the supposition that Hutchinson is the Ripper, you make some valid points. But I'm afraid that Hutchinson may not be the Ripper. He may be the Ripper. He may also be a concerned citizen with a photographic memory who was sorely misjudged by the local police force. The only evidence for Hutchinson's guilt is the fact that he came forward after the inquest to say he saw Kelly pick up a trick. You can interpret that information in a number of ways. I don't expect you to agree with me. But I don't think that the Hutchinson-Is-The-Ripper evidence is particularly strong. I suggest that he did not resemble any of the other witness statements on the other crimes, and there seems to have been at least a similarity of height among those descriptions. I think, if it were remotely possible that Hutchinson could be involved, the police would have been all over him like a bowl of hot soup. And there is absolutely no record of that having happened.

I also think that the expectation of privacy in the Victoria Home was nil. And the difference between a human heart and a beef heart or a lamb heart may well have been fairly obvious. Dahmer and Nillson had apartments of their own to pursue their nasty appetites. I think the Ripper did as well. Because apart from all the bits and bobs he had a knife, and not a short one.

[DVV]

The reason why Hutch did come forward...?

Good morning all,
Hutch and Fleming are my favorite suspects, and I believe that Sam Flynn's suggestion (Hutch=Fleming) may well be the solution.
But one thing remains unclear IMHO: the reason why Hutch did come forward.
I don't think Lewis' testimony was a big problem for Hutch.
If Hutchinson (or "Flemtchinson") was the killer, who was to suspect him?

Here is my suggestion: Hutch could have been suspected by people in the Victoria Home.
Hutch said that he spent the night in the streets, then went sleeping at the VH as soon as it opened.
People there could have thought: "Hey, that's strange... Why was he in the streets at the time of the murder...?" (Especially because it was a cold and rainy night.)
Hutch could have felt this suspicion...
Look at his statement: "I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday (= Monday), and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night." (Daily News, 14 Nov)

Maybe this unknown lodger has told Hutch (maybe as a vague joke...): you could be the killer, you came late on Friday...
I assume at this time everybody was talking of the murder, everybody was suspecting everybody...
Isn't that a better reason for Hutch to have come forward?(than Lewis or Barnett or Vanturney's testimonies?)

Let me know what you think. I drank a bit too much yesterday after 2 rugby matches, and I'm not sure I'm not raving...

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I think, if you are operating on the supposition that Hutchinson is the Ripper, you make some valid points.

I'm not operating from any pre-supposition, Chava. I'm trying to discover which explanation, if any, makes the most sense of the existing evidence. For example, we look at the content of the statement and decide whether it rings true or not, then we look at what the police appeared to have made of it in the long run. Then we discover when he came forward - right after Lewis' evidence became public knowledge. Of course the evidence is open to interpretation, but if you arrive at any other deduction than "Hutchinson came forward with false description after learning he'd been seen", I personally feel that too many coincidences are being dismissed as random.

It simply isn't true to say that the only indications of possible guilt concern the fact that he came forward and claimed to have seen Kelly, as that doesn't take into account the important specifics.

I suggest that he did not resemble any of the other witness statements on the other crimes

But where's the evidence for this?

For all we know, he could have matched them very well indeed, and if he was Lewis' loiterer (which seems very likely, short of bizarre coincidence) we know that he did match them in terms of height and build. I'm afraid you may have added a few inches to his height for no good reason at all.

I think, if it were remotely possible that Hutchinson could be involved, the police would have been all over him like a bowl of hot soup.

The absolute reverse would have occured, Chava, if the police had any nous. If there was any suspicion directed towards Hutchinson, it would have been a disasterous move to make it public. Why? Because it would send the message that that was how the police treated witnesses who wished to help the police, which, in turn, would deter any future genuine witnesses from coming forward. That said, if they never did suspect him, that doesn't weaken his candidacy. It just means the strategy worked if it happened as I've suggested.

I also think that the expectation of privacy in the Victoria Home was nil. And the difference between a human heart and a beef heart or a lamb heart may well have been fairly obvious

Nope, not at all. The vast majority of VH residents could only have afforded the dodgiest meat cuts - odd looking, and odd smelling, a factor which may have prompted Jack London's observations about the "foul-smelling" kitchens. The difference between a lamb or pig's heart and a human heart would not have been obvious at all. Far from it. In the East End of 1888, the trick was not to seek privacy or some sort of Harry Potter invisibility cloak. The trick was to be avoid notice, to be inconspicuous, and to blend into the masses. A killer living in a crowded, grubby lodging house could acheive this to considerable effect.

Dahmer and Nillson had apartments of their own to pursue their nasty appetites.

Yep, and that's where they took their victims, and that's where he killed and buried them. My suggestion is that JTR killed on the streets because he DIDN'T have private accomodation. As for knife concealment, what's wrong with a coat pocket in a 6p a night private cubicle?

[Ben]

Hi David,

That's a very good suggestion, but one to be considered as a potential additional motivating factor to the Lewis theory, rather than a substitution for it.

Hope you enjoyed the rugby.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
thanks for your comment. Isn't it possible that Hutch worried about being suspected by lodgers in the VH, and subsequently, had to deal also with Lewis' testimony?

Amitiés,
David

ps: enjoyed much, indeed! Toulon won (vs Biarritz), and France lost (vs Australia). And since I prefer my region than my country...

[Sam Flynn]

The vast majority of VH residents could only have afforded the dodgiest meat cuts - odd looking, and odd smelling, a factor which may have prompted Jack London's observations about the "foul-smelling" kitchens.

Not to mention his observations about East Enders diving with gusto into piles of cremated meat at the doss-house table, or those who helped themselves to such dainties as condemned pigs' bones, fresh from the refuse and sprinkled with disinfectant, for their own consumption. (And, it should be observed, this was what it was like after 1900.)

[Chava]

OK, here is another possible scenario:

There was no police reward, but private rewards had been spoken of often. Lewis describes a man at the entrance to Millers Court. Hutchinson hears about it and thinks 'I could be that guy! And I bet whoever did those women was a Jew! There are enough of 'em around here. I'm going to say I was there and saw her with a Jew. If I'm right and they get him, I can claim whatever money's going around. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul.'

And the kitchens in the doss-houses London describes were foul-smelling because the men used to piss in the fire. If I recall correctly, he makes that point, and Mayhew does as well. Also, if you read London and Mayhew, you quickly discover that the most common food cooked in those kitchens was bloaters, which we'd now call herrings. They didn't half pong as well. and it was fairly common practice to share meals. Somehow I don't see the Ripper being interested in sharing...

[Sam Flynn]

And the kitchens in the doss-houses London describes were foul-smelling because the men used to piss in the fire.

...I suppose the rancid meat and boiling saucepans of fish-heads had little to do with it

[DVV]

OK, here is another possible scenario:

There was no police reward, but private rewards had been spoken of often. Lewis describes a man at the entrance to Millers Court. Hutchinson hears about it and thinks 'I could be that guy! And I bet whoever did those women was a Jew! There are enough of 'em around here. I'm going to say I was there and saw her with a Jew. If I'm right and they get him, I can claim whatever money's going around. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul.'

Hi Chava,
so where was Hutch during that night?

[Ben]

Isn't it possible that Hutch worried about being suspected by lodgers in the VH, and subsequently, had to deal also with Lewis' testimony?

Absolutely, David. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Hi Chava,

The problem I have with that scenario is that Hutchinson didn't provide himself with an alibi. If he'd gauged enough from the inquest to learn that the likely time of death was between 3.00am and 4.00am, then surely it was an absolute priority to 'fess up to where he really was at that time? Something like "I left the Court at 3.00am(false), then joined my mates at the Vic Home for some whist (true)", just so any question of his complicity in the crimes is safely eradicated.

"Walking around all night", by contrast, is about the only activity imaginable that couldn't be checked into to verify, and would be about the only excuse the real killer had at his disposal if ever he was quizzed about his whereabouts. Everything else was vulnerable to easy contradiction.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Good point about Jack London, Gareth!

[Chava]

This is changing the discussion a bit, but I was reading the Demolition Pic thread on Victims/Kelly and something struck me. The discussion is whether and what Lizzie Prater heard of the cry of 'murder' at 3.00 am. Now Lizzie Prater says in her inquest testimony and, I assume, her statement, that she didn't hear anything of Kelly that night. Although a few years later she tells the reporter Kit Watkins that she heard Kelly singing through the night. (She was probably after a drink to tell her story.)

The only person who did claim to hear Kelly singing on the night she died was Mary Ann Cox. However I am assuming that there were other residents/denizens of Millers Court around that night--they couldn't all have been out all night on the ran-tan. And I am also assuming that none of them had anything to say beyond the fact that they didn't see or hear Kelly at all. Because if they had done, they would have been witnesses at the inquest. Which means that neither Prater nor anyone else except Cox heard that racket. And I find that difficult to believe. I am wondering if Hutchinson isn't the only one embroidering around here...