Archive through 04 November 2002

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 04 November 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: The British George Hutchinson: Archive through 04 November 2002

Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 09 September 2002 - 07:36 pm
Hi Timsta. Although this isn't the text to which I alluded earlier, it does provide some indication as to the sink's location:- '[The Ripper] evidently paused afterwards to wash his hands in a sink in the passage north of the Square; the bloodstained water was still visible when Major Smith ... arrived on the scene.' Taken from Wilson and Seaman's The Serial Killers (p36), the preceding text is ambiguous since there was no passage to the north of Mitre Square. But St James' Passage was situated to the north-west, so it seems reasonable to suppose that the sink was situated there or thereabouts - unless, of course, the sink was installed after the murders and Colin made a simple error of assumption. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Divia deBrevier Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:45 pm
Other sources of blotchy complexion: sun damage alcohol consumption (flushes the capillaries in the face that can cause a blotchy appearance) lupus (can cause a butterfly pattern-like rash on the face making the face appear blotchy) vascular changes due to aging (aka gin blossoms) allergic reaction (hives/rash/redness with inflammation) cold weather/harsh wind salt blisters (hmm... like a sailor, maybe?) poor diet *hypersensitivity to electricity/electromagnetic fields (not recognized as connected to blotchy complexions until much later, electricity was used during Victorian times for phones, telegraphs, and industrial machines so it is still a possibility) These were just a few more to add to the pile. Warm regards, Divia
Author: Jim Leen Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:33 am
Hello Everybody, TB's another source for a blotchy face which, given the prevailing circumstances, was hardly unlikely. Divia, War, regards? And you seem like such a nice soul too! Thanking you. Jim Leen
Author: Robert Maloney Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:13 am
Hi, David Rhea: Mr. Rhea you recently asked a question concerning Mr. Astrakhan Man's style of dress. (Or, at least I think you did :-) I have argued in the past that the 'man' seen by Hutchinson was dressed the way an actor might have dressed back then. I went in search of 'evidence' to back this up. I hope this helps. This excerpt was taken from Heartbreak House by H.V Morton, from The Heart of London (1925) In the old comic papers you will find a stock character whose nose is red, whose coat collar is Astrakhan, whose hand is always drawn in the act of conveying drink to a clean-shaven mobile mouth--a mouth always uttering the words: "When I played Hamlet, laddie in 84'..." He is, or rather was, the out-of-work actor. No actor has of course ever been out of work: he "rests" sometimes for so long a period that idleness becomes a habit. Lack of employment seems to cover the actor with disgrace. In most other professions men make no secret of being out of a job, but the actor acts both on and off the stage. The out-of-work actor to-day (you find him in Leicester Square and the Charing Cross Road) has changed since the comic papers pictured a tragedian whose ambitious argosies had evidently foundered in, as Homer would put it, a wine-dark sea. To-day you find him in a bar, merely because he will meet there other actors and agents and pick up news of his heartless and overrated profession; but in his hand is a glass of ginger beer. His clothes are well-cut and he wears a public school tie. His spats draw attention to his worn boots, always the sign of a man's condition, and as he drawls lazily in his Oxford voice, real or assumed, he tries hard to give the impression that, resting, as he is, on the enormous profits of his genius, he must keep an important appointment in Mayfair at one-thirty or the duchess will be absolutely furious. Rob
Author: Divia deBrevier Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:09 am
Hello, Jim: Sorry, my bad... the "comma" key is next to the "m" key and in my haste I hit the wrong key. I went back and edited my post to reflect my kinder, gentler side. Warm regards (without the war), Divia
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:35 pm
Dear Robert; Thanks for your answer.I earlier said, getting my knowledge from Fishman, that the bookie also wore outlandish clothes.Now you have presented an out of work actor.From what I read, readers of popular novels such as George m w reynolds 'Mysteries of London' was a popular street activity.I guess it might have been like the actors that toured the American West giving performances and readings of famous or popular works.The works were the penny dreadfuls and were well illustrated and were popular with those who could and could not read.So Hutchinson's suspect was not so far out after all, but a personage who was seen often in the area.David Rhea
Author: Monty Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:54 pm
Timsta, Just to add to Mr Wroes thoughts on a sink in Mitre sq. I too remember reading about a sink in St James place near the orange market. If I remember correctly the location was near St James passage of the market. I shall try and locate it. Viper might be worth a try. His knowledge is vast when it comes to such things. Monty
Author: Timsta Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:01 pm
Monty: Yeah, I was just thinking Viper would be able to help. If there really was a sink at that location, this might cast a very different light on Smith's story (assuming you believe anything he says) and hence the killer's route post-Mitre Sq and pre-Goulston St. Regards Timsta
Author: Monty Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:07 pm
David and sweet Divia, Eczema or Psoriasis. On the boards a while ago we had a Mr Philip C Dowe who gave us his profile of Jack. Seeing as this was Philips line of work I thought it was a decent job. It it he said he felt that the murderer has a deformity of sorts. He thought it could have been a 'hare-lip'(why I know not). At the time I asked if it could have been a skin deformity (if sorry for my use of such a crude word), thinking of BFM and he conceded that it could have been. Monty PS Have you noticed the photo of an elderly (so we are told) G Hutchinson in Faircloughs 'Ripper and the Royals ??....he has that fair look about him.
Author: Rodney Gillis Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:07 pm
Divia, I've given thought about the blotchy complexion witness descriptions and have thought along the same lines as you. I believe it is a possibility that the person identified may have had Rosacia. Rosacia is something that is chronic but depending on current diet, increases/decreases in intensity. The identified person may have had a blotchy face at one sighting and have a complete reversal several days later. Rod
Author: Garry Wroe Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 03:36 pm
Hi Timsta. In The Mammoth Book of True Crime 2 (p236), Colin Wilson describes the mutilations inflicted upon Kate Eddowes and then addresses the issue of the killer's departure from Mitre Square:- 'He now strolled off through the passage to the north of the square, pausing to wash his hands in a sink (which was still there when I looked at the scene of the murder in 1961).' Again, this is not the text to which I originally referred since there is no description of Colin cycling between the murder sites, but it does confirm that he saw a sink in or contiguous with Mitre Square in the early 1960s. And on that note, I respectfully tender my resignation from the ablution archives. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Monty Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 03:43 pm
Garry, So you've washed your hands of it then ?? Monty
Author: Garry Wroe Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:00 pm
I sink so.
Author: Timsta Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:19 pm
Hi all. This might be useful re: the sink: GB/NNAF/O55780 Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association (later the Drinking Fountain Association) London 1859-1970 : minutes, corresp, drawings and trough files London Metropolitan Archives Reference : Acc 3168 NRA 17124 Fountain Assoc see Annual return 1993 London Metropolitan Archives Contact Details 40 Northampton Road London EC1R 0HB England Tel 020 7332 3820 Fax 020 7833 9136 Regards Timsta
Author: Timsta Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:25 pm
Oh, and: The Drinking Fountain Association Hoppingwood Farm Robin Hood Way London SW20 0AB Regards Timsta
Author: Robert Maloney Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 05:22 pm
Your welcome, Mr. Rhea and I totally agree with the comments made in your reply post. Rob
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 06:08 pm
In "JTR: The Simple Truth" - Bruce Paley leads us to believe the sink in question is on Dorsett Street. Have is been determined it definately was not Dorset Street
Author: Garry Wroe Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 07:21 pm
Hi Brenda. The sink story originated from Major Henry Smith who, as I'm sure you are aware, was Acting Commissioner of the City Police on the night of Kate Eddowes' death. According to his version of events, he sped over to Mitre Square on hearing of the murder, then spent the next few hours searching for the Ripper. It was amid this search that he claimed to have located a sink on Dorset Street that the killer had used to wash away his bloodstains. But Smith's recollections are generally confusing and not a little contradictory - hence the speculation that he may have been referring to the Mitre Square sink rather than one in Dorset Street. But even if he did, as he claimed, discover such a sink, how did he know that it contained blood? And how was he able to determine, without any scientific means at his disposal, that it was human blood? More to the point, what were his extraordinary powers of perception that he was able to define this as Kate Eddowes' blood? What must be borne in mind here is that it was not until 1901 that Dr Paul Uhlenhuth developed the first scientific test for distinguishing human from other mammalian blood. This being the case, it is clear that the Major's reminiscences are unreliable, tainted as they are by the liberal inclusion of dramatic licence. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 10:12 pm
Yes I see, and especially with so many butcher-type occupations around Whitechapel, how did he know it wasn't some butcher washing up after a long day? There is only one thing I could think of that might led one to assume heavily it was Kate's blood and that would be if feces was mixed in with it since it appeared the whole murder got rather messy. Even then, though, that still would not be definate proof and as no mention was made of feces being present in the sink, we kind of have to discount the whole story. However, the thought of a bloody sink in Dorset Street makes the imagination run wild with speculations.
Author: Monty Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:39 am
Timsta, Up till 2 am...looking through my books........cant f~#ing find it........ AAaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!* It would be interesting to find out if washing sinks/pumps were fairly common or not in and around Whitechapel. Monty
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 04:39 am
Timsta, Sinks or troughs,of a square or round design,were fairly common in most districts at that and later times. Most were to supply water for the numerous horses that were used.Feed was carried in nose bags which were slipped over the horses heads and were removed when the horse was led to drink at these troughs.There was nothing to prevent the water in these troughs from being used for other purposes. H,Mann.
Author: Diana Sunday, 27 October 2002 - 11:20 pm
Anybody got a physical description of George Hutchinson? I'm really interested in figuring out why his dandy was so different from the Schwartz/Lawende description. Those are the only two descriptions that tally and so are likely to be accurate. If, as Mr. Wroe thinks, Hutchinson is our man then we would expect him to resemble that description. Mrs. Long's inaccuracy can be explained because as she said herself she only saw Jack from the back.
Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 28 October 2002 - 07:01 pm
Hello Diana. If you'd care to look at the final chapter of Person or Persons you will find an artist's impression of Hutchinson. I have to confess, though, that I have never been able to determine whether the artist in question ever met Hutchinson or, as was the case with the victims, a likeness was composed on the basis of second-hand information. Sarah Lewis described the man she saw as short, stout and wearing a Wideawake hat. His hat and clothes were possibly black. One reporter also described Hutchinson as 'a man of military bearing.' Until there is persuasive evidence to the contrary, Hutchinson must be considered the man sighted and described by Sarah Lewis. As such, her observations constitute the only known description of Hutchinson. Neither should it come as any real surprise that the Jewish-looking suspect's description is at variance to those proffered by Lawende and Schwartz. In reality, Hutchinson could not have met Kelly as he claimed to have done in his police and press interviews. Had this meeting occurred, Hutchinson would have been aware that Kelly was roaring drunk at the time. Yet Hutchinson described her as no more than a little tipsy. In other words, the Kelly encounter was an invention. And if this was the case, so too was the concatenation involving the Jewish dandy. I would also strongly suggest that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim, there being not an atom of evidence to link her death to the accepted series. As for the men seen by Schwartz and Lawende, the first was intoxicated, aggressive and verbally abusive. Compare this behaviour to that exhibited by the man seen with Kate Eddowes forty-five minutes later and the conclusion that these were in fact two different men is, to my mind, inescapable. Sorry to be so negative. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 28 October 2002 - 08:14 pm
Garry, I think I would also apply your view to Caroline Maxwell's sightings. Rick
Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 28 October 2002 - 09:03 pm
Hi Rick. Nice to hear from you again. My view regarding Carrie Maxwell (as with Maurice Lewis) is that she was telling the truth as she knew it. I think it likely, however, that she confused Kelly with another of the Miller's Court prostitutes. In Chapter Five of Person or Persons I suggested that Catherine Pickett might have been the object of this confusion. She was, after all, in the right area at roughly the right time and was a frequent caller at Mary Jane's room. It is interesting, too, that both Maxwell and Lewis described Mary Jane as "stout." Examine the Miller's Court crime scene photographs, though, and Kelly's form is anything but stout. Again, I believe that this anomaly accords the 'mistaken identity' hypothesis additional gravitas. I'd certainly be interested in your views in this respect. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 29 October 2002 - 06:15 pm
Hello Garry, Every time I read a discussion in which Caroline Maxwell's evidence is treated as a case of mistaken Identity,I feel compelled to remind people of the following points: 1.Maxwell's discription of what Kelly was wearing was almost identical to that of another witness who saw Kelly the previous night. 2.Maxwell was not corrected when she called Kelly Mary Jane. 3.More than two witnesses claimed to have seen Kelly that morning 4.In her statement,Maxwell stated that she also knew Joseph Barnett whom she knew was,at one time living with Kelly. 5.Is it likely that there were other Ginger haired Irish prostitues,living in Millers court answering to the name of Mary Jane? 6.Maxwell must have known Kelly sufficiently well to be aware of the fact that Kelly was not generally an early riser.This is evident as Maxwell asked Kelly "What brings you up so early"? Needless to say I believe Mrs.Maxwell was not mistaken and therefore Kelly was murdered mid-morning. Regards, Mick
Author: Garry Wroe Tuesday, 29 October 2002 - 11:04 pm
Hello Mick. Taking your points one by one:- 1/ The description of Kelly's clothing could have matched thousands of women in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area. Hence, the argument that two women wearing similar or even identical attire must have been the same woman does not strike me as particularly persuasive - especially since we have unequivocal evidence that some of these women were in the habit of lending items of clothing to their friends. I might also point out that eyewitness observations regarding clothing and the like were long ago exposed by forensic psychology as dangerously unreliable. 2/ Mrs Maxwell greeted the woman she presumed to have been Kelly with the salutation "Hallo, Mary." As far as I'm aware, she did not address this woman as 'Mary Jane'. There are, of course, any number of reasons why this woman did not correct Mrs Maxwell's presumed misnaming of her. Perhaps her name (or alias) really was Mary. Maybe she was feeling so nauseous that she simply couldn't be bothered with a correction. It is also known that Carrie Maxwell was something of 'a character', possibly an eccentric. It is entirely possible, therefore, that she was in the habit of misremembering names and that none of those who knew her wasted time in correcting her. We simply do not know. 3/ A number of witnesses, as you have correctly stated, claimed to have seen Kelly when medical and other evidence assumed her to have been dead. The problem here, however, is that many of these so-called sightings were based upon honest misidentification or, as was noted by several journalists, a dishonest desire to profit by selling bogus information to the press. Unfortunately, these are precisely the kind of circumstances that tend to propagate myth and general misinformation. 4/ I'm not aware that Carrie Maxwell ever claimed to have 'known' Joe Barnett. She claimed to have known Mary Jane, of course, but under cross-examination conceded that she had only ever spoken to her twice. She did say that Kelly lived with a man, and that this man had been "paying her." This, I would suggest, hardly constitutes an intimate association between Barnett and Carrie Maxwell. 5/ How many Irish, ginger-haired prostitutes occupied Miller's Court? In all honesty, Mick, I don't know. But, beyond the word of Kelly herself, there is no evidence to suggest that she was Irish. Even if she was, and the story regarding her familial relocation to Wales was true, then she would have presumably spoken with a Welsh rather than an Irish accent. As for her hair colouring, both Carrie Maxwell and Maurice Lewis described her as short, stout and dark. The ginger reference, as far as I have been able to determine, first emanated from a woman who had confused Mary Jane with someone else. 6/ Given that most of Miller's Court's female occupants were streetwalkers and thus tended to work (and drink) into the small hours, it is hardly surprising that they also tended to be late risers. As such, Mrs Maxwell's comments to the woman she supposed was Kelly can in no way be taken as evidence that this woman was indeed Kelly. Again, I would merely point out that Mrs Maxwell had only spoken to Kelly twice, so the notion that she innocently mistook her for someone else is hardly a fantastical proposition. Although you can, should you wish, find a far more detailed exploration of these issues in Chapter Five of Person or Persons, my belief is that Carrie Maxwell made a simple identificational mistake in her Kelly-related claims. Not only did she work at a lodging house (possibly Crossingham's) directly over the road from the Miller's Court interconnecting passage, she also lived next door to this establishment. As such, she probably saw on a number of occasions a woman (possibly Catherine Pickett) leaving Kelly's room and assumed this woman to be the room's occupant. Thereafter, whenever hearing local gossip concerning Kelly, she would have mistakenly associated it with the woman she had seen leaving the room. Similar mistakes were certainly made by other women in the immediate aftermath of the Miller's Court murder. And if Mrs Maxwell was indeed guilty of misidentification, we have a plausible explanation for Mary Kelly's apparent rise from the dead. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 05:34 pm
Garry, I submit for your examination the thought that the reason Mary Jane doesn't appear "stout" in her photograph is due to all of Jack's slicing and dicing. ;-)
Author: Garry Wroe Thursday, 31 October 2002 - 07:15 pm
Hi Brenda. I'd certainly accept that the Miller's Court crime scene photograph(s) provides no insight into the normal appearance of Kelly's abdomen, breasts or buttocks, but the left arm and lower right leg are relatively mutilation free and provide no obvious indication of obesity or even portliness. In my experience, overweight women have a tendency towards fleshy upper arms and pronounced calves, neither of which appears to have been a feature of Mary Jane's morphology. Indeed, I would describe her as shapely rather than stout. But perhaps your more discerning female eye would lead you to a different conclusion. Anyway, I'd certainly welcome any thoughts you'd care to share. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: John Dow Friday, 01 November 2002 - 07:01 am
Hi, Garry - you said: >Even if she was, and the story regarding her >familial relocation to Wales was true, then she >would have presumably spoken with a Welsh rather >than an Irish accent. Erm, why? I have Irish friends who moved to Scotland when they were pre-teen and they still speak with an Irish accent, not a Scots accent. The reason for this is that they lived in a home environment where their parents had strong irish accents and had lived in Ireland for thirty years before moving to Scotland. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that MJK had anything other than an Irish accent. J
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 01 November 2002 - 12:25 pm
Hi John. You have raised an interesting point of detail. Diana, I believe, made a similar observation several months ago in relation to a discussion concerning Joe Barnett's accent. As with Diana's example, I don't for a moment doubt the validity of your assertion regarding your Irish friends. Yet such cases appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Without wishing to bore you with tedious detail, brain-set does not occur until the age of about ten, at which point neurofunctionality becomes largely fixed. Prior to brain-set, however, neural pathways are relatively nonspecific and may be adapted by way of learning and experience. This explains the importance of early learning, since the process helps to adapt and utilize neural pathways that might otherwise be wasted. Because of these processes, a pre-brain-set child will not only acquire new languages much more easily than its post-brain-set counterpart, it also tends to absorb new idioms. As such, a pre-brain-set child, once relocated, has a tendency to absorb the accent peculiar to its new location. More often than not, any resultant accent change will occur as a consequence of day-to-day interactions with school friends. Again, this is a tendency rather than a hard and fast rule. But it does occur with the majority of young children. A good example of this idiomatic transition emerges through the case of the Kray twins. Although native East Enders, they were evacuated to Suffolk for a short time during WW2 and very quickly picked up a rustic burr. John Pearson noted that, after this relocation, the twins referred to their Aunt Rose as 'Rawse'. Linguists have noted similar idiomatic changes in English children over the last few years. The influence of American music and TV programmes has led to pronunciational anomalies such as 'siddy' (city), 'priddy' (pretty) and so forth. (Amazingly, a recent academic study revealed that a significant proportion of British child respondents would contact the emergency services by dialling 911.) On this basis, John, I would respectfully dispute your contention that 'There is no reason whatsoever to believe that MJK had anything other than an Irish accent.' Trusting to probability alone, I would suggest the likelihood (but not certainty) that Kelly spoke with a Welsh dialect. But there again, where is the evidence to corroborate any of Kelly's antecedental claims? I have certainly never found a contemporaneous reference to her accent, Welsh, Irish or otherwise. Remember, too, that not a single member of her family was ever traced. Even armed with the knowledge that Johnto was serving in Ireland with the Scots Guards, police proved unable to establish his existence, much less his whereabouts. In my view, John, too much has been assumed about the Ripper case. It is assumed that Kelly must have been Irish because Kelly claimed as much. It is assumed that she spoke with an Irish accent because ... well, she must have done if she was born in Ireland. But where is the proof that she was indeed born in Ireland? Where is the proof that Johnto was her brother? Where is the proof that her name really was Mary Jane Kelly? Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Kev Kilcoyne Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 06:05 am
I see earlier on in this thread, that someone was interested in Hutchinson's appearance. In the otherwise discredited book 'The Ripper and the Royals' by Melvyn Fairclough (ISBN 0 7156 2444X), you will find on P146 a photograph of both George Hutchinson (1866-1838) and his son (then aged 74). The photograph of George, I would think, was taken in his late sixties and obviously looked much different to how he would have done aged 22, however the basic facial structure would not have changed.
Author: kevin sharpe Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 09:51 am
Garry Wroe Just read Person or Persons. Being new to this subject may I say it makes far better sense than Cornwell's self publicity excercise. I think you have put forward a very credibly candidate in George Hutchinson. The one thing that makes him highly suspect in my view was the fact that he identified MJ Kelly,s body following the murder. Having seen the crime seen photo's I would be amazed how anyone could name with certainty the identity of the body.It could be argued that he was able to recognise the clothing she was wearing, but given the items of clothing she was found in, and the clothing she would likely have been wearing the evening when Hutchison is said to have seen her (wet and cold I believe)this cannot be easily explained? Is much known about Hutchison?
Author: kevin sharpe Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 09:54 am
OOPs! I did mean crime scene not seen!!
Author: Garry Wroe Saturday, 02 November 2002 - 02:05 pm
Hi Kevin (K). As I have mentioned previously, I spent years searching various archives for any reference to Hutchinson's date or place of birth and came up with precisely nothing. Hence I'm somewhat sceptical regarding Mr Fairclough's claimed identification of the George Hutchinson. Hi Kevin (S). It is known that at least three and possibly as many as five people other than Hutchinson identified Kelly's body. As such, I see no reason for suspecting Hutchinson on this basis alone. And whereas our visual perception of Kelly is limited as a consequence of the monochromatic crime scene photographs, those who viewed the actual body were not so restricted. Kelly's hair colour and texture would have been far more apparent, for example. So too would scar tissue, moles, freckles, body hair, finger nails, hand shape and general skin colouring. Such factors, I would suggest, would have rendered the identificational process far more straightforward than some modern observers would have us believe. As for our present state of knowledge regarding Hutchinson, it is fairly meagre, I'm afraid. There are those who claim to have identified the Hutchinson and pieced together his life history. So far as I am aware, however, no-one has established a concrete link between any of these Hutchinsons and the man who was interviewed by Abberline. Consequently, we have a good deal of speculation but precious little in the way of established fact. Having said this, I have it on good authority that some new Hutchinson-related information will be emerging in the none too distant future. Watch this space. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: ALAN SMITH Monday, 04 November 2002 - 05:44 am
Whereas an undisputed case against Hutch is obviously a long way off he remains the only suspect against whom substantial circumstantial evidence can be levelled in the specific case of one of the victims. 1. He was at or near the scene of Kelly's murder. 2. He followed the victim and a client. 3. He waited at the entrance to Millers Court whilst Kelly was entertaining 4. He was aquainted with the victim and had given her money before. All of the above is confirmed by his own testimony. In addition to these facts, he was hanging around in the middle of a cold night despite having just undertaken a 4 hour walk from Essex. The reason he gives for this is that he was suspicious of seeing a prostitute with a client. (In 1888 Whitechapel? Yea very suspicious). He gives a ludicrously accurate description of Kelly's companion right down to the colour of his eyelashes, despite only a brief sight of him in the dark.(Incidentally fair eyelashes AND of Jewish appearance hmmmm) He didnt come forward until AFTER the inquest into his "friend's" murder at which a witness stated that a man (obviously Hutch)had been hanging around the entrance to the Court. Jack the Ripper he may or may not be, but George Hutchison is most certainly the prime suspect in the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Alan
Author: Caroline Morris Monday, 04 November 2002 - 06:50 am
Hi Alan, All, But one's own testimony can confirm little or nothing by itself. Carrie Maxwell testified that she and Kelly spoke shortly before the latter was found murdered. She claimed to be acquainted with the victim. Yet the worst she can ever be accused of is telling attention-seeking lies; of wanting to be involved in this sensational murder investigation; of getting her name into the papers and the history books. Couldn't Hutchinson have been doing much the same thing as Carrie is accused of? More foolish than her, perhaps, since being male he risked becoming a murder suspect himself simply as a result of his proximity to events. Giving such a detailed but somewhat belated account could have backfired on him spectacularly, whatever his real reasons for coming forward. Yet he emerged unscathed until recently and now he is being described as the prime suspect. Is this another leap too far, I wonder? Love, Caz
Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 04 November 2002 - 06:20 pm
Hi Alan. Whereas I would agree with many of your conclusions regarding Hutchinson, I would respectfully suggest that the issue of the Jewish-looking suspect is anything but clear-cut. A very drunken Kelly is known to have entered her room with Blotchy Face just before midnight, for example, where she remained until at least one o'clock. Yet according to Hutchinson's narrative, she was back on the street at 1:50, almost certainly touting for business, but no more than a little tipsy. Two glaring inconsistencies emerge here. First, it is highly unlikely that Kelly would have serviced Blotchy Face and then gone in search of further clientele when the streets were all but deserted as a consequence of the cold, wet and windy weather conditions. Secondly, the notion that Kelly was somehow able to sober up between her 11:45 encounter with Mrs Cox and the supposed meeting with Hutchinson two hours later requires more than a little suspension of belief. Given these two factors, I am of the opinion that the Kelly/Hutchinson encounter on Commercial Street did not, in fact, take place. And if this meeting was a figment of Hutchinson's imagination, it's virtually certain that the Jewish-looking punter was an invention too. Hence I postulated an alternative scenario in Person or Persons, one that accords more favourably with the known or likely variables. Suffice to say, it does not include the Jewish-looking suspect. Hi Caz. You are, I believe, absolutely correct in questioning the validity of Hutchinson's claims. In my view, an uncorroborated 'fact' is no fact at all. All the same, I very much doubt that Hutchinson was a mere attention-seeker. Had this been the case, why did he not come forward on the Friday, the day of Kelly's death? Or the Saturday? Or the Sunday? This was the period prior to the inquest hearing when the facts surrounding the Kelly murder were at their most nebulous. As a consequence, journalists were all but throwing money at anyone who might provide information. So if Hutchinson had been impelled by a financial or egotistical motivation, why did he wait until after the inquest before coming forward? It doesn't make sense. And neither does his going to the police rather than the press. I'm not sure that I understand why the relative recency of Hutchinson's Ripper candidacy should in some way enervate the case against him. From a personal perspective, I endeavour at all times to maintain absolute objectivity when evaluating the evidence against any suspect, irrespective of who the suspect happens to be, when he was proposed, or by whom. In Hutchinson, we have a man who was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder, a man who in addition made demonstrably false claims as to his movements on the night under scrutiny. In any competent latter-day murder investigation, he would be hauled in so quickly that his feet wouldn't touch the ground. In answer to your question, therefore, I'm convinced that his Ripper candidacy is anything but 'another leap too far'. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Timsta Monday, 04 November 2002 - 07:37 pm
Garry: "First, it is highly unlikely that Kelly would have serviced Blotchy Face and then gone in search of further clientele when the streets were all but deserted as a consequence of the cold, wet and windy weather conditions." I think she may well have done, especially if she was expecting Indian Harry to hit her up for the rent arrears the next morning. "Secondly, the notion that Kelly was somehow able to sober up between her 11:45 encounter with Mrs Cox and the supposed meeting with Hutchinson two hours later requires more than a little suspension of belief." Catherine Eddowes allegedly managed to sober up in about 4 hours, and she, lest we forget, was so roaring drunk she was impersonating a fire engine. Regards Timsta PS anyone have any idea of what 'impersonating a fire engine' might have consisted of? I'm assuming an 1888 fire engine would be very different from the ones we think of today.
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 04 November 2002 - 07:51 pm
Timsta, Hee-hee, I'm so glad you asked this question, since I've been wondering about it myself lately. As Chris George has pointed out, fire engines of the time were known as 'steamers,' which looked something like big kettles on wheels. Chris has also speculated that they made a kind of 'whooshing' sound (many thanks Chris, for contributing to my understanding). Timsta, I'll put up an image for you, if I can find the thread for it. If not, I'm happy to email you a couple I've got. Cheers, Dave I wonder if the fire engine impersonation suggests that during the gap of time between setting out for Bermondsey and being arrested, Eddowes might have had a conversation about the big dock fire a month earlier.