Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by packers stem 2 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 19 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by Sam Flynn 41 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Michael W Richards 43 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Michael W Richards 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - by Batman 52 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (54 posts)
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (35 posts)
General Discussion: Martin Fido discovery 2018 - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: All Roads Lead to Dorset St., - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-03-2018, 04:18 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,501
Default

Blotchy appears to have been working with, or for, the police, so he wasn't a legitimate suspect.

The police were not looking for "Hutchinson's suspect four days later."

How can a fictional creation be a murder suspect, unless, of course, his name is Jack the Ripper.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-03-2018, 05:07 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Blotchy appears to have been working with, or for, the police, so he wasn't a legitimate suspect.
The man Galloway saw was never ID'd as Blotchy. Whatever the man was doing was never satisfactorily explained.

Quote:
The police were not looking for "Hutchinson's suspect four days later."
If you are prepared to accept a simple press story by the Star, on what grounds can you dismiss another press story that shows it was wrong?

Quote:
How can a fictional creation be a murder suspect, unless, of course, his name is Jack the Ripper.
Your opinion is hardly definitive.
On Dec. 6th Abberline though they had caught JtR at last. Their suspect was a middle-aged Jew, who wore an Astrachan coat, and was known to sport a fake gold watch chain - Joseph Isaacs.

Abberline clearly had Hutchinson's suspect in mind nearly a month after the murder.
People actually did dress that way, maybe you were not aware of it?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-03-2018, 08:22 PM
RedBundy13 RedBundy13 is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somerset, WI
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
What makes you say that the Bath House was Jewish? I was under the impression that it was open to all, and managed by the Vestry of Whitechapel.
Yes my mistake for saying that it was only a Jewish Bath when it was in fact open to everyone although it was predominately Jews who swam and bathed there (at least 2/3rds Jewish) and the same goes for Goulston St., I didn't mean for it to sound like it was ONLY Jews who lived on Goulston St. because I'm sure that there were other people living there besides just the Jewish residents. But again, predominantly Jewish.
Heres a link for the 2/3rds Jewish Bathing Statement: https://www.spaexperience.org.uk/abo...ast-london-spa
And I see that that Link is out of date: Heres some of it anyways:
In 1889 Charles Booth observed:

The newcomers have gradually replaced the English population in whole districts, Hanbury Street, Fashion Street, Pelham Street, and many streets and lanes and alleys have fallen before them; they have introduced new trades as well as new habits and they live and crowd together.
As well as setting up small synagogues, like those in Eastern Europe the Jews opened shops selling kosher food. Posters and newspapers were printed in Yiddish and Jews also introduced the custom of “Russian steam baths”.

The steam baths were were an important part of social and religious life and were mostly used by men following work on a Friday evening at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, before they went to synagogue for prayers. In 1888, The secretary of the Jew’s Temporary shelter wrote that there were 5 exclusively Jewish East London Spas. He named one in Little Alie-street, Whitechapel, one in Heneage-lane, Bevis Marks, and one in Steward-street, Spitalfields, and two others. Mr Montague also wrote that there were five Jewish bathing establishments within half a mile of Aldgate and that these were entirely attended and supported by “Jews and Jewesses” and that the Jewish swimming club, connected with the Goulstone-street Bath, was the largest in the East End, and that at least two thirds of the people who bathed there were Jews.

Last edited by RedBundy13 : 07-03-2018 at 08:25 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-03-2018, 09:02 PM
RedBundy13 RedBundy13 is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somerset, WI
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Hell yeh, after all it had to be the only red handkerchief in all of London.
Why wouldn't he wear it a second time and risk being recognized.
Everybody would...right?
I don't think he was wearing though the 2nd time, that is if I'm remembering it correctly? Didn't Kelly supposedly say something about forgetting her handkerchief and A-Man pulled a "red" one out of his pocket to give to her? IMO, theres only two explanations for him bringing that up. 1: Because that really was what he witnessed and he was just relaying what he saw. or 2: He needed something to give the detectives that could link Kellys murder with a previous one that was committed by The Ripper. ie: Red hanky which was seen being worn on the suspect who was witnessed talking to Eddowes down the Great Synagogue alley leading into Mitre Square just prior to her death.
So basically what I'm saying that either Hutch was telling the truth and he gave by far the best, most detailed description of the Suspect yet to date or he was lying (or greatly exaggerating) about either the whole thing or just some parts of it. And if that is the case, and he was lying then that should be followed with "Why"? Which is where everything gets complicated because there are SO many reasons for him to lie or exaggerate what he did or did not see. Some of those are: Possibly getting money from the newspapers? Covering for himself by trying to throw the investigation off track by having the detectives look in totally the wrong direction? Or maybe covering for someone else? I'm sure we could come up with 20 more, at least.
For me, I'm liking the reason that he was lying to cover for himself more and more everyday. Would I bet the farm on it? Nope, not yet at least
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-03-2018, 11:19 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If as usual you mean his story was found to be false or unreliable - no police force is going to follow up on his story.
From the outset, some authorities questioned the hoax letters and tape sent to the police by "Wearside Jack" during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, but that didn't stop George Oldfield from continuing to believe them.
Quote:
We know how they dismissed Packer because he was unreliable, yet they were still looking for Hutchinson's suspect four days later.
All we can say with certainty is that there was a report in the press to that effect four days later, by which time it could have been old news.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-04-2018, 02:54 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBundy13 View Post
I don't think he was wearing though the 2nd time, that is if I'm remembering it correctly? Didn't Kelly supposedly say something about forgetting her handkerchief and A-Man pulled a "red" one out of his pocket to give to her? IMO, theres only two explanations for him bringing that up. 1: Because that really was what he witnessed and he was just relaying what he saw. or 2: He needed something to give the detectives that could link Kellys murder with a previous one that was committed by The Ripper. ie: Red hanky which was seen being worn on the suspect who was witnessed talking to Eddowes down the Great Synagogue alley leading into Mitre Square just prior to her death.
So basically what I'm saying that either Hutch was telling the truth and he gave by far the best, most detailed description of the Suspect yet to date or he was lying (or greatly exaggerating) about either the whole thing or just some parts of it. And if that is the case, and he was lying then that should be followed with "Why"? Which is where everything gets complicated because there are SO many reasons for him to lie or exaggerate what he did or did not see. Some of those are: Possibly getting money from the newspapers? Covering for himself by trying to throw the investigation off track by having the detectives look in totally the wrong direction? Or maybe covering for someone else? I'm sure we could come up with 20 more, at least.
For me, I'm liking the reason that he was lying to cover for himself more and more everyday. Would I bet the farm on it? Nope, not yet at least
Personally, I believe he came forward to explain away Sarah's Wideawake man and replace him with a trusted friend. Because Sarah actually saw someone involved with the killing , and those factions got Hutchinson to give his tale.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-04-2018, 06:23 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 262
Default

When we look at Sarah Lewis testimony I think we should remember that all she saw was a man standing outside of a building across the road which was full of people seeking a bed for the night. Not someone in the act of committing murder, or even with a knife in his hands etc. There could very easily be a simple explanation for someone standing there. And don't forget it was someone she could barely describe. Would this really be enough for a killer, Hutchinson or whoever to come forward and all the dangers that entailed to give himself an alibi?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-04-2018, 08:01 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
When we look at Sarah Lewis testimony I think we should remember that all she saw was a man standing outside of a building across the road which was full of people seeking a bed for the night. Not someone in the act of committing murder, or even with a knife in his hands etc. There could very easily be a simple explanation for someone standing there. And don't forget it was someone she could barely describe. Would this really be enough for a killer, Hutchinson or whoever to come forward and all the dangers that entailed to give himself an alibi?
great question DK

usually not. But this man was obviously hutch. both he and sarah describe his behaviour -as if waiting for someone to come out.


Hutch may have wondered if she knew Mary or even himself. Hutch knew Mary and apparently alot of people in the area did also.


hutch may have worried she knew him and or someone else may have seen him standing there, or go into the court near her door (his second press version) and felt it was better to come forward as a witness, rather than to be searched for as a suspect.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-04-2018, 08:19 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,501
Default

Hi Jon,

I agree.

But the man looked sufficiently like Cox's description of Mr. Blotchy for Mr. Galloway to report him to the police.

The police stated that the man was "acting in concert" with the police.

So, could Mr. Blotchy have been "acting in concert" with the police?

How do you know that the press story which allegedly showed the Star to be wrong was not in itself wrong?

On December 6th Abberline was allegedly overheard by an anonymous informant to say, "Keep this quiet—we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing."

Leaving aside that this was merely hearsay, what leads you to believe that Abberline was talking about JtR?

If he had been, he was seriously wrong—

"It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it [the Kelly murder] was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'." Daily News, 8th December.

So Isaacs wasn't the fictional Mr. Astrakhan.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:03 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
this man was obviously hutch. both he and sarah describe his behaviour -as if waiting for someone to come out.
If Hutch was - or wanted to convince the police he was - the man seen by Lewis, why did he not say that he saw her enter the court?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.