For me only 2 suspects stand out...

[John G]

Hi all,

Where can I read the Ripperology article about Hutch going Down Under?

Hi,

It's in the October issue of Ripperologist, Issue 146.

[Diddles]

Thanks, John G,

Is it available online?

[John G]

Thanks, John G,

Is it available online?

Hi,

Not sure if other posters may be able to help with this. Essentially you need to be on the mailing list, and you are then emailed free copies of the Ripperologist every month to download in pdf format-back issues are also available.

However, although there is a Ripperologist website, when I sent them an email I got no reply. Fortunately, Paul Begg, the editor, sometimes posts on this site, so I sent him a post and he arranged for me to be put on the mailing list.

[kookingpot]

Thanks, John G,

Is it available online?

You can download it at the following link:

http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/ripperologist146.pdf

If you are interested in this publication, you should get yourself on the mailing list, they can provide links to other back issues. Email contact@ripperologist.biz and ask them to put you on the list.

[Diddles]

Great! Thank you, I will try to get myself on the mailing list.

[Harry D]

The biggest leap of faith made here is actually when you speak of "a guy like Lechmere" without having the faintest idea what he was about.

So what kind of guy was he, Harry - you who claim to know?

A hardworking family man who was in stable employment, who provided for his wife and seven children and didn't have a criminal record.

However, because he bent the truth about his surname with the police, he is a far more likelier candidate for a serial mutilator than a proven murderer who killed his wife in Ripper-like fashion?

But Harry, an inquest is not a trial.

In coming forward after the inquest, he is still open to interrogation, still open to suspicion. His police statement is still valid, and everything he says can & will be investigated.
So what is the importance of coming forward at the inquest? - nothing really.
Remember, the inquest concerns the victim, who she was and how she died.
None of that was changed by Hutchinson not attending.

It's a false argument, is what I'm saying. The actual timing of him coming forward did not matter from the police point of view.

You're misinterpreting my point. Of course Hutchinson was still answerable to the law at this point, but it wasn't until Sarah Lewis spoke of seeing a man loitering outside the court that Hutchinson actually decided to come forward. Did he come forward out of duty, to make a quick buck and five minutes of fame, or to insert himself into the case and derail the investigation? There had to have been a reason.

[John Wheat]

A hardworking family man who was in stable employment, who provided for his wife and seven children and didn't have a criminal record.

However, because he bent the truth about his surname with the police, he is a far more likelier candidate for a serial mutilator than a proven murderer who killed his wife in Ripper-like fashion?

To Harry

I agree entirely with your point about Lechmere how can he be a more likely candidate for a serial mutilator than Bury a proven murderer who killed his wife in Ripper like fashion just because he bent the truth about his surname?

Cheers John

[Garry Wroe]

*Oct 30th 1885 in the Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register of Vagrants, 1885-1886 records George Hutchinson aged 30 as a Groom who spent the previous night "walking about". He was put to work breaking stone and upon discharge was going to Edgeware.

Intriguing find, MS. If this refers to the George Hutchinson it might explain the connection with Kelly who was seemingly living in the Ratcliff Highway area at the time. Many thanks.

[Sally]

This was picked up by Pat first I think, Garry - it was a few months back if memory serves.

I've looked quite closely at various workhouse records myself - vagrants' wards are particularly interesting to me as a rich [if sadly limited] source of data on the habits of the itinerant in contemporary society amongst other things.

One thing I learned from this register which might be of interest to you is that the journey back and forth to Romford was commonplace amongst the itinerant class, who appear to have travelled from one administrative district to another in order to avoid the penalties incurred by spending too many nights in one within a prescribed timespan.

The casual ward in Romford was a bit of a favourite, apparently - and there may of course have been other draws in terms of casual labour opportunities.

However odd it's seemed to us now, Hutchinson's trip to Romford probably attracted little attention at the time because people of his class did it all the time.

This itinerant Hutch is our man for my money.

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks, Sally. And kudos to Pat too. I looked at Romford in detail many years ago. Aside from the observations you have made, I believe that there were army barracks situated there at the time of the Ripper muders. This certainly piqued my interest given the description of Hutchinson's military appearance. If memory serves I also located a Romford-born George Hutchinson in the births' registers then housed at St Catherine's House. If I'm not mistaken this man was born circa 1860, which would tend to exclude him as Pat's Hutchinson. Still, intriguing stuff, to be sure.