Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[perrymason]

If Hutchinson was a lookout, is it possible that he was one and the same as pipeman from the Stride killing?

But who would agree to assist a crazy person to do such a thing? What in the world would he get out of it?

Good questions Diana, though I think Pipeman is down the list a bit on the potential killer of Liz list....particularly since he is said to leave the scene, and the last we see of her she is left in the company of a man that she had an altercation with... alone...15 minutes and fewer steps from her death and murder site.

On the "assist" issue.....hard to answer, but this is the ONLY murder that had any potential association with an accomplice addressed in a formal police declaration.

Cheers D.

[Ben]

But Lewis is the only person who saw him.

We don't know that, Chava.

Lewis was the only person who mentioned seeing him, but that was because she was interviewed at Miller's Court at a time when they the police were preventing any egress from inside. That doesn't mean mean that other people didn't see him who had nothing to do with the court. Sarah Lewis also mentioned a man and a woman "in drink" who passed along. They too must have seen Hutchinson, but simply never made themselves known or didn't mention it.

No point whatsoever in doing all that and then going back to hanging conspicuously around the court and waiting for a while.

Unless he knew that she was ensconced in the room with a client, in which case Hutchinson could easily have been waiting for that client to leave. We don't know when Blotchy left the room, so it's entirely possible that Hutchinson was waiting for HIM to leave. As for Lewis, she would only have been a concern to Hutchinson at the time if he knew she was going to enter the court, as opposed to passing through on her way home somewhere else. Only then did she pose a problem because she suddenly had a reason to observe him; she was entering the very court he was monitering - bugger.

The fact that he was seen on occasions doesn't mean he didn't care about it, or that he wasn't anxious to minimize the risk of being recognised. It just means he wasn't invisible to the masses of Spitalfields denizens, many of whom were homeless. You speak of "hiding" places as though they were plentiful in the vicinity of Dorset Street as though they were plentiful, which simply wasn't the case.

In other words, the real person who was 'looking up the court as if he were waiting for someone' may have fetched up, wideawake hat and all, along with the person he was waiting for.

In which case, that would have been his word only against Hutchinson's, with nothing to corroborate either version. If something of that nature did occur, the chances of it not having survivied are very slim indeed. I'm afraid there's absolutely no evidence that such an incident ever occured.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Yes, Ben. But that's the whole point. We say 'it looks like the police dropped Hutchinson faster than a mouldy piece of bread' and you say 'no, there's no evidence of that. They may well have thought he was a suspect but didn't have the enough to charge him...' The fact is there is no evidence of anything. For all we know, the above 'it was me and my pal' scenario could well have taken place. There's as much evidence for that as there is for Hutchinson The Suspect. ie nothing. We have got nothing. You think one thing and I think another and there is no evidence for either side. All we know for sure is that the police believed Hutchinson. And then they didn't. Something happened to make them discount his evidence completely. And it would have to be something pretty persuasive, because they withdrew that Mr A description and went back to looking for Blotchy Face. If Hutchinson was in any way a suspect, Blotchy Face wouldn't be important.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

As far as I'm concerned, if Hutchinson is a legitimate suspect for the Kelly murder, then he's a legitimate suspect for the others by extension. I don't need to look for additional reasons to link him with the other victims because crime scene evidence does the work for me. Central to your argument is your opinion that Kelly was not a ripper victim, and it is this factor that influences your thinking with regard to Hutchinson's culpability in the other crimes.

Jack kills middle aged unfortunates who have no permanent residence other than frequenting certain lodging houses

That's a circular argument though, Mike. You've decided what Jack did and didn't do on the basis of the victims you've already excluded. If Jack was responsible for Kelly murder, then he clearly didn't just kill middle-aged prostitutes in doss houses.

in the streets, and it is believed he acted as a customer and accompanied them to dark spots outdoors,... then attacked them, cutting off their air supply in some fashion first before even using a knife.

Not if he killed Kelly.

I know youre trying to....but I think at this point he may be a suspect in the death of Mary Jane,.....to morph him into Jack, you have a long road to hoe Ben.

I have an easily hoe-able road, Mike. I just cite my reasons for believing that whoever killed Kelly also killed the others, and say that as far as I'm concerned, any viable suspect in the Kelly murder is automatically a viable suspect in the others. You may disagree, but only on the basis of your belief that Kelly wasn't a ripper victim, which is a different discussion.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I have no problem in acknowledging that the police may well have 'dropped Hutchinson faster than a mouldy piece of bread' in terms of his status as a witness, Chava. But the indications to the effect that he was dismissed as a witness certainly do not equate to a dismissal of him as a suspect, if they ever considered him in that capacity (for which, as you rightly point out, we've no evidence).

The fact is there is no evidence of anything. For all we know, the above 'it was me and my pal' scenario could well have taken place. There's as much evidence for that as there is for Hutchinson The Suspect. ie nothing.

You mean there's no "proof", surely. There is, as far as I'm concerned, evident circumstantial support for Hutchinson as a viable suspect.

[Chava]

OK, but what about the return of Blotchy Face? The police started looking for Mr Astrakhan. And then a day or so later--it may even be faster than that--they are discounting Mr A and looking for Blotchy Face. I can't come up with a reason for that unless Blotchy Face is now, once more, a person of interest and Mr A isn't. This doesn't mean that you can't think of him as a suspect. But the police didn't seem to. And I respectfully submit that they must have had a reason to discount his evidence as fast as they evidently did. If they are looking for ol' BF, whose appearance on the scene predates Hutchinson's by about two and a half hours, then they have to be thinking that he might have something to do with it. And if it wasn't for the irritatingly unassailable evidence of Mary Ann Cox, he might have!

[perrymason]

Hi again Ben,

My argument isnt based on my opinion that Mary Kelly wasnt killed by Mr Ripper...my argument is based on the fact that Mary Jane is the youngest by almost half than all the others, she was very likely met by her killer at her door or window, she was not homeless, and she was indoors, in bed, when she dies.

All of those factors and more, before any knife is produced, do not marry with any of the prior attributed victims case studies.

I just got finished having Sam tell me that only The Telegraph is the de-facto source on Liz's room location, despite the fact it conflicts with 8 sources including the Times, and now youre telling me that despite the fact that there are zero similarities between how Jack obtained his victims up until November 9th and Mary Jane, ... where he met them, and what transpired before the throat cut,.... they are all unimportant, because we just have to accept that Jack changed his whole MO that night.

Based on what Ben? The fact that she is cut literally to pieces? And thats another first by the way.

If the accepted witness testimony regarding the sequence of events and times are accurate regarding Mary Jane Kelly, then she went in at 11:45pm on the 8th....and never came out. Which by neccessity means her killer must have gone to her room. From that starting point, all things prior to the actual cuts have nothing in common with the evidence available concerning Polly's, Annie's, Liz's and Kates acquisition by their killers.

I dont need to accept that a killer with a consistent MO prior to the murder on November 9th suddenly changes his "spots" on his last supposed kill, only people who want this murder to be Jack the Ripper do.

There is evidence that suggests that her killer came to her, and was allowed to stay without loud protest. That implies a personal connection, and thats yet another non-Ripper attribute added to this murder.

Best regards Ben.

I think I may have run my course here old friend, so forgive the tone. In two years Ive accomplished little else than demonstrating what its like to have to mount a continuous defense for positions that other people dont like. Not that they were all flawed conceptually, that didnt seem to matter, they were just dismissed like they were offered by someone who cant interpret English and never read a sentence about Ripper crimes. Since these are all unsolved crimes without a known suspect, its odd that I can be so wrong suggesting that they be treated that way.

Frankly, Im not used to dismissal so readily, my opinion on matters carries some weight amongst my peers, and many are no intellectual slouches,...so I have to assume that what this is is Ripperologist bias, and it would be pointless to continue to try and contribute ideas and spark discussions that just end with whomever Im addressing feeling they know the facts and the interpretations better.

See ya Ben.

[Ben]

I agree with most of what you say there, Chava.

Hi Mike,

I'm not dismissing your opinions, mate, just disagreeing with a few of them. Having weighed up the evidence, my personal interpretation is that Kelly was killed by the individual responsible for the other murders. That doesn't mean I'm definitely correct, or that I have the monopoly on facts or debating ability.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Michael,
I read your posts wih interest,and I believe the points of disagreement between you and others,are not that large.Like Ben I do believe that Hutchinson's behaviour and story calls for a special consideration.My experience in life might lead me to a different interpretation of events,but look, even among the police at the time there would have been,at times,huge disagreements.
I would believe,that excepting the unreliability of witnesses in general,most were stating what they believed or knew to be the truth.Blotchy faced man was a reality.Lewis saw a man at Crossingham's at 2.30am.Lawende,Schwartz and Diemschutz accounts,with exceptions,are believable,and so are others.
Not so Hutchinson,and the reasons have been expressed in considerable detail.What HUtchinson has done is to have attempted to rule out the possibility of Kelly's killer to have been anyone other than a Jew,and in consequence her murder other than a domestic incidence.It does not however rule out the killing as being a JTR crime.So his story would seem to have a purpose that other witness accounts lack.
One last thing.Had Hutchinson stated he was surpried to see Kelly take a stranger home,as he believed her to be living with someone,his story might have sounded more believable.No mention of Joe seems to indicate a knowledge of her living alone,a circumstance that benifitted the killer.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Not for the first time I have to suggest one possibility ie, 'What if George Hutchinson was a genuine witness, and simply relayed, albeit a weekend after the event the honest truth?.
What if he did see MJK in Commercial street around 2am on the morning of the 9th, and the words she uttered were exact'Hutchinson can you lend me sixpence'.?
What if, he did pass a well dressed man just before he sighted Mary?
What if he did give a exact account of the 'bursting out laughing' and ' You will be comftable scenerio?
What if the staring at Astracans appearance was true, and his following the couple also, and the 'I have lost my hankerchief, and the kiss was not a figment of his imagination?
What if his account of waiting opposite the court, for the amount of time he stated, was also true, and his wandering the streets untill his lodgings opened the doors also?
And we should not forget, what if his trek back from Romford on the 8th was also true?
The fact is Hutchinson has only ever been looked at with negative blinkers, and his status in Ripperology I would suggest is unfair to his memory.
All that folks, and not a mention of any ghostly broadcast.............
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Hi Harry,

Thanks for posting your impressions, you are a well balanced thinker. For me, someone who has probably interviewed thousands of people in my lifetime as a Salesman, a lot of what I offer is based on that experience of humanity, and what was learned about people generally. When combined with data, Ive found it to be a valuable resources for problem solving. But Im not so sure anymore that what we do here is an attempt to problem solve at all, so I may be a fish out of water here all this time.

Richard, it sure would be a dramatic turn in the investigation if all you suggested was true. I dont think you should feel sorry for him though....his delay in coming forward and his suspiciously detailed description were most certainly his own doing. And historically, lead to his "undoing" as a source that is trustworthy.

Ill sign off with this...thread related....the only witnesses to the events that concerned Mary Kellys room and her physical self that night that have for 120 years remained consistently believed, are the accounts that came from people in that court, or in 26 Dorset. Whether that should have been the case or not is a moot point.

Cheers Harry, Richard and Ben...et al.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I understand your position on that issue, but can only reiterate that my reaction would be the same as if I'd been asked the question; "What if my auntie had gonads?" - very, very surprised indeed.

You think Barnett's guilty.

But what if he was just an honest-to-goodness citizen?

What if loved Kelly dearly and was devastated to learn that she'd been killed?

What if he was playing whist at Buller's at 3.00am on the night her murder?

Etc Etc.

You argue that questioning Hutchinson's credibility and possible complicity in the murders is unfair to his memory, but aren't you doing precisely the same thing with Barnett?

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Richard,
Try to answer this question.Why would she ask an aquaintance to lend her sixpence,then only a few seconds later, after just a few seconds of talk,take a complete stranger to her room?

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
You make a very fair point my friend.
You are right to suggest that I suspect Barnett, but not so adamant as I was back in 2003 when Leanne and myself started out on the quest to write a book, which I should add I was delighted Leanne managed to complete, having dropped out of the venture along the way, mainly because other possibilities like Fleming appeared to be right in the mix.
The very fact is, all of the many suspects that have floated in at out of Ripper-world since day one, proberly have been accused unfairly, but this subject is all about gut feelings, experience,and imaginative minds, and my hunches sway along the truth of Hutchinsons account.
As for Barnett and his whist playing, that game or at least his participation in it, ceased by his own admission at 1230am.
Best Regards
Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Harry,
With Reference to your point.
The request of a loan from hutchinson of 'sixpence', I would suggest comes from what appears to have been his apparent generosity written in his statement ' I often gave her a shilling or two'.
Mary would not have seen him as a prospective client, more so a friendly acquaintance, and an apparently 'Soft touch'.
But on the other hand Astracan would have been seen as a different kettle of fish, a definate business transaction.
I have always believed that if GHs version is correct then Mary Kelly must have known this man, [Astracan] if one takes the opinion that she was paronoid about being alone, not only on the streets , but even in her room,which apparently stems from a recent nightmare she had[ note Kit Watkins account of Lottie].them why would she feel so confident to escort a COMPLETE, stranger back to her room dressed in attire that was alien to her?
That is of course if his account was true...... Which I am confident [ at least in my own mind] was.
Regards Richard.