|
|
|
Mega
Genius® Intelligence Briefing: The
Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part VI Warning:
The subject matter and essential specifics of this intelligence briefing may not
be suitable for minors or the mentally impaired. Part
VI: When All the Puzzle Pieces Fit I performed magic professionally on stage and television for 45 years. In November 2000, I revealed all the basic secrets of modern magic in “The Genius Formula™ Series” of The Mega Genius® Lectures, in which I said that the basic difference between a magician and a criminal is ethics; one fools you with a smile and the other with a smirk. When you watch a magician perform, notice anything that he does that does not make sense, or that seems out of place, or that does not quite fit. There is a reason, and if you want to solve the mystery, you need to find out what it is. In our investigation of Jack the Ripper, we also need to notice any piece of that puzzle that does not make sense, or that seems out of place, or that does not quite fit. We should never force, ignore, avoid, or try to explain away a piece. Again, there is a reason that any puzzle piece does not fit properly, and if we want to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper, we need to find out what that is, too.
Did the man in astrakhan have a pale complexion or a dark complexion? Did the man in astrakhan have a slight moustache or a heavy moustache? Did the man in astrakhan have a very surly (menacing) look or did he not look as if he would attack someone? Did the man in astrakhan have a very sharp walk or a very soft walk? Could George Hutchinson identify the man in astrakhan or not? He confirmed to Inspector Abberline that he could and, according to the press, he said, “I could swear to the man anywhere.” But then the press quoted him as saying that he could not be certain. Which was it?
Those contradictions constitute important puzzle pieces that do not fit. Many students of the mystery consider them to be minor discrepancies. Those people make magicians' hearts beat fast, for they are easily fooled. Instead, you should see the contradictions as glaring pyrotechnics, warning us that instead of chasing the man in astrakhan, whom George Hutchinson claims to have seen, we should be examining George Hutchinson, himself. Nine significant puzzle pieces do not fit in George Hutchinson’s story: 1. A rational person may have difficulty recalling a datum, but he will not remember it as opposing data. For example, he will not remember a dog as having been all black and later as all white, or a fruit as having tasted disgusting and later wonderful. Why, within 24 hours, did George Hutchinson diametrically contradict himself five times as he described the man in astrakhan? 2. According to his own police statement, George Hutchinson saw the man in astrakhan closely for only a few seconds, in the dead of the night, by an overhead flickering gas lamp above Commercial Street, yet he recalled more than four dozen details about the man, including such minutiae as the type of fabric that covered a small parcel that barely extended beyond the man’s tightly gripped left hand and the shape of his tie pin. At 2:00 a.m., on Friday, 9 November 1888, in Spitalfields, there was a solid cloud cover, and the moon had set five hours and 29 minutes before, at 8:31 p.m. There was no visible moonlight. How then could George Hutchinson remember such details about the man as the color of his eyelashes, when Hutchinson testified that the man had his hat pulled down over his eyes? 3. On Charles Booth’s “Descriptive Map of London Poverty,” Dorset Street was marked in black, denoting that it was full of poverty, thieves, viciousness, disease, and other dangers. Even police would not venture onto the street, except in pairs. Booth's police guide called Dorset Street, which was just one block from The Ten Bells, the worst street in London. Respectably decked out from head to toe, wearing even an astrakhan trimmed coat, and spats, the overdressed man whom Hutchinson claimed to have seen would have looked like a person of high-class pretense communicating an air of superiority. More importantly, he would have looked like an easy mark. Why would a respectably dressed person enter that notorious area of Spitalfields, even venturing down Dorset Street, the most hazardous street in all of London — which the Daily Telegraph called "dangerous even in daylight" — on a dark and moonless night, ostentatiously sporting a massive gold chain and other jewelry? 4. George Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline that he followed Mary Jane Kelly and the man in astrakhan to Miller’s Court because he was surprised by the man’s well-dressed appearance. Then, at 2:00 a.m., in the near freezing November darkness, during a continual drizzle, he said that waited 45 minutes more, just to glimpse the man again. That is illogical; why was he really at Miller’s Court, at 2:00 a.m.? 5. According to George Hutchinson’s statement to Scotland Yard, he saw Mary Jane Kelly with the man in astrakhan moments before she was murdered. If so, then when George Hutchinson thought that he might have seen the man in astrakhan again, in Petticoat Lane, on Sunday morning, just two days after the murder, why didn’t he follow the man and summon a police officer? 6. George Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline on Monday, 12 November, that he could identify the man in astrakhan. Why did he contradictorily tell the press the next day, on Tuesday, that he believed that he might have seen the man, in Petticoat Lane, on Sunday, but could not be certain, and subsequently tell the press, “I could swear to the man anywhere”? 7. According to George Hutchinson’s press statement, he said that the man in astrakhan and Mary Jane Kelly passed him at the corner of Commercial Avenue and Fashion Street, one block south of The Ten Bells, and then crossed Commercial and walked down Dorset Street to the entrance of Miller’s Court. Hutchinson said that he then followed them as far as the intersection of Commercial and Dorset, where he listened for three minutes as they stood kissing and discussing things, including Mary’s lost handkerchief and a red one that the man in astrakhan gave her, at the entrance to Miller’s Court. From the corner of Commercial Avenue and Dorset Street, how did George Hutchinson overhear a couple’s intimate nighttime conversation at the entrance to Miller’s Court, and see that a handkerchief that Hutchinson gave Mary Jane Kelly was red, on a dark moonless night, at a distance which I have personally measured to be nearly 150 feet (46 meters)? 8. Mary Jane Kelly was murdered early Friday morning, 9 November. By midday, the atrocity was the talk of London and within hours was newspaper copy worldwide. Why then did George Hutchinson withhold his crucial eyewitness testimony from the police for three entire days, and even then continue to withhold it until 6:00 p.m. Monday, 12 November, after the inquest into the murder had closed? 9. Inspector Abberline, who believed Hutchinson, wanted desperately to catch the man in astrakhan. To do that, it was imperative that Hutchinson’s description of the man, which was circulated to all police stations, remain confidential, as the police did not want the man to learn that they were looking for him and then disguise himself or flee. Why
did Hutchinson, after he had described the man in Astrakhan to Inspector
Abberline, describe that man in extreme detail to the press the very next day,
which immediately published it, thereby ruining any chance for the police to
find the man in Astrakhan? Now let's recap those first seven puzzle pieces: (1) George Hutchinson’s contradictory descriptions of the man in astrakhan; (2) his unrealistic recollection of numerous details in minimal lighting; (3) the risk assumed by the man in astrakhan; (4) Hutchinson’s illogical explanation for being in Miller’s Court; (5) his failure to follow the man in astrakhan on Sunday; (6) his conflicting statements about his ability to identify the man in astrakhan; and, (7) his extraordinary abilities of sight and sound. Each of those puzzle pieces is based upon an assumption—that the man in astrakhan existed. But, did he? Let's consider the possibility that he did not. If the man in astrakhan did not exist, then the first seven puzzle pieces were merely the result of George Hutchinson's untruthful statements. Voila! Suddenly, seven puzzle pieces just fell magically into place. The eighth puzzle piece is why did Hutchinson withhold his testimony from the police for three days, and even then continue to withhold it until the inquest had closed? This piece fits if he slaughtered Mary Jane Kelly and then had no intention of contacting the police. That is, until he read in the newspaper about Mrs. Sarah Lewis’ testimony at the inquest. She had sworn that at about the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s death, in the early morning hours of 9 November, she had seen a man, “not tall, but stout,” standing alone in Dorset Street, directly across the street from the entrance to Miller’s Court, where Mary Jane Kelly lived. She said that he was looking up the court. Scotland Yard immediately began searching for that man, who it later turned out was George Hutchinson. Did he suspect that Mrs. Lewis could identify him if she saw him again? If so, he could not have assumed the risk of appearing at the inquest, where Mrs. Lewis might have excitedly exclaimed, “That’s him! That’s the man that I saw at the murder scene!” Neither could he have risked allowing the police to track him down after Mrs. Lewis had testified. That would explain why, at 6:00 p.m., on Monday, 12 November, after the inquest had closed, Hutchinson walked into the Commercial Street Police Station and daringly confronted the police with an imaginary scenario to explain why he had been seen directly in front of Miller’s Court, near the time of the murder, by Mrs. Lewis. The ninth, and last, puzzle piece fits if Hutchinson’s reason for spilling the confidential description of the man in astrakhan to the press on Tuesday, 13 November, just hours after he had revealed those details to the police, was to give that imaginary suspect a reason to disguise himself or flee, thereby creating a convincing reason why the man in astrakhan — who never existed — could never be found. Throughout the world, investigators of the case of Jack the Ripper believe that George Hutchinson was the witness most likely to have seen Jack the Ripper. Do you suppose that he was … every time that he looked in the mirror? Inspector Frederick G. Abberline was an admired, knowledgeable, and highly capable law enforcement officer of Scotland Yard, in charge of the detectives. Yet, could it be that the key to solving this baffling case was merely a matter of not assuming that Inspector Abberline was infallible? Has the door to the identification of Jack the Ripper remained sealed like a tomb for more than 120 years merely because one "expert," Inspector Abberline, had an erroneous opinion? Obviously, Scotland Yard made some crucial mistake in the case. Why? Because they never caught the Ripper! The evidence suggests that the mistake occurred at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, 12 November 1888, when the esteemed Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, of Scotland Yard, met with, and was fooled by, the best of the worst: Jack the Ripper. Now, all the puzzle pieces fit precisely, without forcing, ignoring, avoiding, or trying to explain away a single one of them. So, let’s double check; let’s review our 10 points of verification. Extremely few possible suspects match half of them. If George Hutchinson has blood on his hands, he should. 1. Fact: Serial killers are almost always white males. Was George Hutchinson? Finding:
Yes. 2. Fact: Serial killers usually commit their atrocities between the ages of 20 and 35. Was George Hutchinson within that age range? Finding:
Yes. 3. Fact: Serial killers usually prowl and attack their first victims close to their own backyards.” The Ripper stabbed to death his first victim two blocks south of The Ten Bells, at No. 47 George Yard Buildings. Did George Hutchinson live extremely close to that location? Finding:
Yes; he lived at the Victoria Working Men’s Home, at 39—41 Commercial
Street, at the corner of Wentworth Street and Commercial, just one block west of
that crime scene. 4. Fact: Serial killers, if employed, are usually common laborers. Was George Hutchinson a common laborer? Finding:
Yes. 5. Fact: Serial killers usually appear rational and personable. The police probably questioned Jack the Ripper, but did not suspect him. Did the police question George Hutchinson, but then conclude that he was not a suspect? Finding:
Yes. 6. Fact: Serial killers are likely to disfigure the faces of victims whom they know, in hopes of destroying their personalities. Did George Hutchinson know Mary Jane Kelly? Finding:
Yes; he had known her for three years, by his own admission. 7. Fact: Jack the Ripper’s victims were murdered on weekends or holidays. In all probability, he was employed. Was George Hutchinson employed? Finding:
Yes, until shortly before the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. 8. Fact: All of Jack the Ripper’s victims were attacked within a circle with a one-half mile (805 meter) radius. The serial killer almost certainly lived near the center of that circle. Did George Hutchinson? Finding:
Yes; he lived only two blocks from dead center. 9. Fact: After murdering his fifth victim, Catherine Eddowes, in Miter Square, Jack the Ripper escaped in a northeasterly direction and tossed the bloodstained piece of apron into a doorway at 108—119 Wentworth Model Dwellings, on Goulston Street. The Ripper’s home was most likely a short distance past Goulston Street, in the same northeasterly direction. Is that where George Hutchinson’s home was located? Finding:
Yes. In fact, the doorway where the bloody piece of apron was found was
precisely on the most direct route that Hutchinson could have taken to where he
lived, which was just two blocks beyond Goulston Street, in a northeasterly direction. 10. Fact: Jack the Ripper almost certainly was stout or muscular.
Mrs. Elizabeth Long and Constable
William Smith, both of whom apparently saw the Ripper, testified that he was
about five feet seven inches tall. Constable
Smith also testified that the Ripper's age was about 28.
Do those physical characteristics align with those of George Hutchinson? Finding:
Yes; Mrs. Sarah Lewis testified that the man that she had seen at Miller’s
Court, later determined to have been George Hutchinson, was “not tall, but
stout.” The press reported that
George Hutchinson’s age was 28. After we fit all the puzzle pieces together precisely, all 10 verification points also match perfectly—a series of characteristics that could all apply only to a minuscule percentage of the population and to no other suspect in this case. Still, the noose tightens. On 10 November 1888, Dr. Thomas Bond, who had 21 years experience as a police surgeon, wrote to the Secretary of State, “… so one or two o’clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder [of Mary Jane Kelly].” We can place George Hutchinson within a couple of blocks of Mary Jane Kelly’s door at 2:00 a.m., within one-half block of it a few minutes later, and within 50 feet (15 meters) of it momentarily after that, by his own statement to the police. Dr. George Bagster Phillips, who had 23 years experience as a police surgeon, had once said that it would have taken himself at least 15 minutes to have performed all the injuries suffered by victim number three, Annie Chapman. Accordingly, it must have taken nearly an hour for Jack the Ripper to have meticulously butchered Mary Jane Kelly as extensively as he did. Consequently, the Ripper would have left Miller’s Court around 3:00 a.m. So did George Hutchinson, who told the press that when he left Miller’s Court, he heard the clock on Christ Church, in Spitalfields, chime 3:00 a.m. George Hutchinson’s own words and deeds help to convict him. According to his own testimony, his actions in the early morning hours of 9 November 1888, at the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s brutal murder, were bizarre. So were his explanations to Scotland Yard and the press. His activities for several days following the crime were notably counter-productive to the efforts of Scotland Yard. The noose jerks tight! Not only was George Hutchinson at Miller’s Court—the scene of the crime—from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m.—during the time of the crime—by his own testimony to Scotland Yard, but we can place him even closer to the victim. He actually entered Miller’s Court, supposedly to see if Mary Jane Kelly had any lights on in her room, and approached the victim’s door during the police surgeon's estimated time of the crime, according to his own admission to the press. He
was within a few feet of the victim when the murder was committed. He had all the characteristics of a serial killer.
Evidence
does not get more damning than that! Once Jack the Ripper had fooled Scotland Yard’s famed Inspector Abberline, he had nothing left to prove. Consequently, after the slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly, the police soon realized that the Ripper had vanished from the Whitechapel area, like an apparition in the night. So had George Hutchinson. According to the 1891 census in Whitechapel, he was nowhere to be found. The chase does not end here for everyone. A few crime historians and authors will still argue that Jack the Ripper was someone else, because they have committed themselves to other suspects and will want to protect their reputations, or because they seek to profit. Let them chase the almighty dollar. And, since nothing is as sad as a great mystery solved, a few theorists whose hobby is searching for Jack the Ripper will pursue their hobby, just to keep the mystery from dying. Let them chase shadows in the night. The word proof, intelligently defined, is “that which is sufficient to convince.” Considering only the data that I have reviewed (without the benefit of additional evidence that I am not at liberty to disclose at this time), I could prove this case to a jury, not just by preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a press release or other fanfare, and almost as silently as the serial killer stalked the East End of London, we have intelligently ventured through the darkness of more than 120 years, swept away sheets of cobwebs, and shone a spotlight brightly on the world’s most famous and confounding murder mystery. I know who Jack the Ripper was … and I think that you know, too! On this Halloween, a night that is traditionally dedicated to the spirits of the dead, may the tortured souls whom we knew as Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly rest in peace. Mega Genius® 31 October 2009
[On 5 November 2009, five days after Mega Genius® released this Intelligence briefing, there was a massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, the world's largest military base. A psychotic maniac targeted 42 people, killing 13 and wounding 29. During the rampage, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was identified by witnesses as the shooter. Accordingly, he was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. Dr. Hasan, who trained for four years at Walter Reed Army medical Center, is a psychiatrist. (See "The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part IV.")]
NOTICE - Although these "Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefings" originate from beyond the top of the IQ scale, they are not substitutes for "The Mega Genius® Lectures" -- "The Genius Formula™ Series," " The Uncommon Sense Series," and "The Whole Truth Series" -- which are the fundamentals of wisdom. To learn how to skyrocket your intelligence in three easy steps with "The Genius Formula™ Series" of six lectures, in mp3 downloadable format, just select the glowing treasure chest below.
Copyright © 200 9 - Mega Genius®. All rights reserved.
|
