Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Tom_Wescott]

Maria,

The term suspect seems to be very fluid in Ripperology. The fact that Barnett was associated with a victim and investigated but still cleared tells me there was no suspicion attached to him then and should be none now. Unlike Hutchinson, Barnett did not behave in a manner that a rational person would call suspicious. To my mind a 'suspect' is someone whom the police viewed with true suspicion, and that list is short - Tumblety, Koz, Druitt, Chapman, and now Le Grand. That's your 'first tier' suspect list. Second tier would be the Bury's and Kelly's and possibly Hutchinson (since he was at least attached to the investigation in some manner). The third tier would be the crank suspects, ie Sickert, Royal Conspiracy, etc.

Regarding his alibi, men of the LVP, and even unemployed ones, had to sleep. Barnett was not a lazy man and would have been searching for work each day. There's also the matter of curfew when renting a room. Something tells me you wouldn't be satisfied with any alibi he offered short of beling locked up in jail the entire night of the murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Batchelor

Hello Tom. In your Le Grand article you mentioned the possibility that Batchelor was James Batchelor a police officer. Is this he?

Also, the Hutt character looks familiar. Could it be . . . ?

(Taken from Lloyd's Weekly June 15, 1879.)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

Debs tells me it was Howard Brown who found some press clippings about PC James Batchelor and that led me to think this might be the guy, since man private investigators were ex cops. Unfortunately, we know literally nothing about Le Grand's Batchelor, except this seems to have been his real surname (since PS James refers to him by this name in court). But thanks for this news report. It was new to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

HI Tom,
The more I read about these two private detectives who were so busy in Berner Street, the more I think you are onto something----especially regarding the murder of Elizabeth Stride and Schwartz's description of pipe man and BS man.But I would like to know how tall Batchelor was because Le Grand may match "pipeman" in height but BS man was only about 5ft 7ins.Do you have any idea how tall Batchelor was?
Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Nats. I'd say I'm definitely onto something. I do not believe that Batchelor was a criminal accomplice with Le Grand, except perhaps in regard to his vigilance work. As you know from my essay, Le Grand subsequently attacked Batchelor in the street and Batchelor put a summons against Le Grand, but it was thrown out in police court. It seems their relationship ended at this point. If Le Grand had an accomplice in the murders it would certainly be some thug he had under his thumb, such as John Tysell.

But no, I have no information on Batchelor's appearance.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Tom,
That makes sense.In fact I have often wondered if Jack might have had an accomplice---ever since trying to work out how he escaped unseen by the two policemen doing their beat and the night watch man in Bucks Row.
Night Tom,
Norma

[mariab]

listing the suspects

Tom,
completely agree with you about the term “suspect“ requiring an exact definition in Ripperology (see the end of my message for an attempt to make a “definitory“ list), and that neither Barnett nor Hutchinson were contemporary suspects per se, and that Hutchinson behaved suspiciously but Barnett did not. Still, there are 2 questions raised after having established this:
1) The police did NOT seem to have suspected Hutchinson, despite him having behaved suspiciously, and despite his deposition/description being very problematic. What does this say about the police's biased preconceptions about the “profile“ of the killer, and about their growing desperation pertaining to an arrest of someone, whomever that might be? (And pref. a Jew or a foreigner?)
2) (And here I go again!) That Barnett behaved as a perfect witness does NOT necessarily clear him out. He might have managed to remain calm, incospicuous, and convincing under questioning (although his stuttering, made fun of by many newspapers, might have been a hint of his real inner turmoil.) His demeanor during questioning reminds me a bit of the case of Ridgewater, who was questioned by the police as a suspect/witness for the Green River killings, then was let go until his permanent arrest, 26 years later.
Again, let me stress that for Barnett all my suspicions are JUST conjecture. We have nothing non-circumstancial on him, but we have nothing definite to clear him out either.
Sure, he totally gave the impression of not being a lazy man, he complained to the pollice that he was upset at Mary Kelly for having female colleagues over as lodgers, that they were preventing him from sleeping and that he was looking for a job. But again, whose word do we have for this? Only Barnett's! He might have been a smooth talker, taking away the suspicions from him. And I think I've read somewhere that he might have been fired from his job for stealing. (Which in itself, and particularly in the economy of 1888 Whitechapel, is a misdemeanor, but nevertheless.)
My point is, we don't know for sure. And he was awfully close to the murder of Kelly to just let him off so easily, just because the police did. Sometimes circumstances around a murder are depressingly banal.
As for the matter of curfew when renting a room, I thought that was the case for shared rooms? I don't recall if there's documentation on what kind of lodgings Barnett rented during Kelly's murder.
Tom wrote: Something tells me you wouldn't be satisfied with any alibi he offered short of being locked up in jail the entire night of the murder.
Gee, I don't know! (He he ) Better safe than sorry! But no, I would be totally satisfied if he had an alibi of, say, working, or playing whist with a bunch of friends, being with another woman, whatnot.
Tom wrote:
To my mind a 'suspect' is someone whom the police viewed with true suspicion, and that list is short - Tumblety, Koz, Druitt, Chapman, and now Le Grand. That's your 'first tier' suspect list. Second tier would be the Bury's and Kelly's and possibly Hutchinson (since he was at least attached to the investigation in some manner). The third tier would be the crank suspects, ie Sickert, Royal Conspiracy, etc.
Totally agree with your methodology of listing the suspects, but let me attempt a slightly “nuanced“ “definitory“ listing after what you said, if you won't be totally offended (which is by no means my intention! ):
1) Contemporary suspects: Koz, Druitt, Le Grand, Ostrog (and the latter was a clear wild goose chase).
2) Later contemporary suspects: Chapman, Tumblety, Burry, Kelly, Feigenbaum, and the “foreign sailor“. (The latter two being another two total wild goose chases).
3) Suspects brought forward in the late 20th century by Ripperologists: Hutchinson, Kaminsky/Cohen, possibly Barnett, some unknown local.
4) Total ludicrous theories: The Royal conspiracy, Sickert, and the theory expressed on a casebook thread by someone named David Rada or something (about a Jew wanting to frame another Jew in the Koz household and whatnot).
That's about it, and wow, is it hot here on the roofs of Paris, over godamn 32°C in the middle of the night. Kinda like in Hitch's Rear window...
Best regards,
Maria
PS. On first look I didn't find it and I'm going to look again, but you don't happen by any chance to have the link to the Ramsey case thread on casebook?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. I wouldn't call Tumblety a 'later' suspect, because it appears he fell under suspicion no later than 1889, when the investigation was active. Regarding Barnett, again there's nothing 'suspicious' there that would suggest a murderer. Even Hutchinson is not suspicious to the degree that would suggest complicity. Apparently he had no murderous or violent career prior to or after the murders, and I don't believe he was sophisticated enough to have committed any of the Ripper murders, including Kelly. Incidentally, Bruce Paley's book is a great read, but moreso for his writings on later Victorian life than for his theorizing. Leanne Perry published her book a couple of years ago, and it's mostly a rehash of Paley. Paley's is the best Barnett-as-Ripper book and the best Hutch-as-Ripper book would either be Bob Hinton's 'From Hell' or Chris Mile's 'On The Trail of a Dead Man'.

[Tom_Wescott]

PS. On first look I didn't find it and I'm going to look again, but you don't happen by any chance to have the link to the Ramsey case thread on casebook?

No, but you can click the Search button above this post and to your right and type 'JonBenet' in as a search word and it will bring up the threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Hi Lynn,

Debs tells me it was Howard Brown who found some press clippings about PC James Batchelor and that led me to think this might be the guy, since man private investigators were ex cops. Unfortunately, we know literally nothing about Le Grand's Batchelor, except this seems to have been his real surname (since PS James refers to him by this name in court). But thanks for this news report. It was new to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, Lynn,
How did in fact post this same newspaper article ,I just found it on this thread
I was unable to trace much about this particular policeman mentioned.

[mariab]

Totally my mistake about Tumblety. The fact that Evans discovered about him in the late 20th century made me forget how to think straight!
I'll definitely buy Bruce Paley's book at some point. And thanks so much for clarifying about Leanne Perry's book and Bob Hinton's From Hell and Chris Mile's On the trail of a dead man. I had no idea yet that there are Hutchinson-as-a-suspect books out there, and I've always wondered about him as a suspect. More thanks for addressing my attention esp. on Bob Hinton, otherwise the title of his book would have misled me to think it were about the Royal conspiracy theory!

Tom wrote: No, but you can click the Search button above this post and to your right and type 'JonBenet' in as a search word and it will bring up the threads.
That's exactly what I did a few days ago, and it brought me to a user's profile named John Bennett!! I might try again with “Ramsey“. Normally such a thread should have been inside the folder “Other mysteries“, but it's not. And it's not inside the Pub either. But never mind, I kinda have more urgent things to tend to (like cook dinner?) instead of playing on casebook and procrastinating from work to be done...
Thank you,
Maria

[lynn cates]

Hutt

Hello Debra. Thanks. I apologise for posting the same (nearly the same--different paper) article.

I notice that Howard noted the same name (Hutt) and decided it must be a different one. I recognise that the badge number is different, but couldn't:

1. his number have changed from 1879 to 1887 (or 8)

or

2. there be a wrong identification of Hutt?

I believe that there was a 99% probability mentioned with the photo as being George Hutt.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hello Debra. Thanks. I apologise for posting the same (nearly the same--different paper) article.

I notice that Howard noted the same name (Hutt) and decided it must be a different one. I recognise that the badge number is different, but couldn't:

1. his number have changed from 1879 to 1887 (or 8)

or

2. there be a wrong identification of Hutt?

I believe that there was a 99% probability mentioned with the photo as being George Hutt.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, thanks for posting it anyway, any snippets that might identify Batchelor are very useful. I linked to Howard's post just to refresh both mine and Tom's memory on where the name James Batchelor first came from.

Rob and Neil are the men to answer your questions about Hutt I think. they did some excellent research on him for their Ripperologist article.

[Natalie Severn]

Lynn, thanks for posting it anyway, any snippets that might identify Batchelor are very useful. I linked to Howard's post just to refresh both mine and Tom's memory on where the name James Batchelor first came from.

Rob and Neil are the men to answer your questions about Hutt I think. they did some excellent research on him for their Ripperologist article.

Yes Debs,
When I read that article,which like the others in their police series is so illuminating,I realised I had formed a totally different impression of him,based solely on his exchange with Kate---who was being quite impertinent towards him . But what I liked about him is that he had a few bad marks himself -once for telling "falsehoods" and another for being drunk -can't remember if it was on duty but I also remember he was horrified by the anti semitism that was becoming apparent in the East End and actually took the step of writing to the Evening paper about what he thought to be an abhorrent development---he took steps to only give his initials and an inaccurate address since he wasnt really supposed to write to the papers as a policeman!I think he was also quite tolerant of Kate,despite her cheekiness----Good old Hutt!

[Rob Clack]

I'm afraid it's not City P.C George Hutt in the 'Lloyd's Weekly June 15, 1879 article. His number was 623 in 1879. He is mostly known to us as by the number 968. I don't think me and Neiul could find an exact date for the number change but we think (going by memory) was around 1885/86.

Rob