|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 2:43 am: |       |
G'day,
George Hutchinson really bother's me. He knew something! There's was more to him than met the eye! I'd say he would be my next favourite suspect, except I can't understand why he came forward at all to introduce himself to the case, if he was the Ripper! That just doesn't add up! Not even if it was just to clear his name! It would have taken the police ages to interview all men that fitted Sarah Lewis's description
LEANNE |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Dear RJ,
I do remember this quote here on the Casebook, some time since. But even ruffians would beware of 'hanging around Miller's Court', they hung out 'opposite the end of Miller's Court', and it appears (in this instance) during the evenings. It must also be borne in mind that the circus at Miller's Court would attract all sorts after Mary's death. It should be remembered that Sarah Lewis identified one particular individual lurking about this area sometime after midnight.
Any further thoughts?
Rosey :-) |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Leanne,
Maybe, if GH was JTR, he introduced himslef from an inflated ego. Maybe he thought he was uncatchable and was taunting the police. I could see GH, if he was the ripper, sitting back and laughing, saying something like, "My god, I practically gave myself to them."
The problem I have with GH as the JTR is why did he stop?
More thoughts,
Vlad |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Rosey--Most interesting. I hadn't seen the quote posted earlier, but I now see that you're right: it's part of an article reprinted in Te Aroha Times (New Zealand) in January 1889, evidently from a London source. Ms. Barret-Ducrocq's citation is from the book In the Slums by a Mr. S.F. Swift, who also, evidently, wrote (or quoted?) the newspaper article about Whitechapel. Hmmm. I'm intrigued. I wonder if any of our savants here have come across a copy of the book? One always sees Mearns & Mayhew & Olivia Hill quoted in works about the East End, though largely they were actually describing other parts of the metropolis.
But to matters at hand. Barret-Duccrocq argues the following:
"the London streets served as an annexe to cramped dwellings and a substitute for the village green whose memory was still fresh in many minds. Nursery and playground of the very young, the street served adolescents and adults as a place for eating, getting drunk, entertainment, discussion, courting, and caressing, fighting and, for those seriously down on their luck, sleeping.
Social explorers were always ready to see the street, the 'drawingroom of the poor', as a setting for all kinds of outrageous and depraved conduct..." (p 9)
When you crowd 800,000 souls into an area like the East End, humanity spills into the streets. I see a large section of Whitechapel as comprised of Country folk who went to London to escape the rural factories (the gates of hell, one man called them) only to find themselves wandering around the mazes of stone and dirt. Read the words of the locals that survive in the inquest papers. For one thing, insomnia was epidemic. And no wonder. Ever spend a night in a hostel? I did on a couple occasions, once in Galway. The snoring was so loud I would have got up and walked the streets myself if it wasn't raining sideways Irish cats and dogs. In short, I see the streets being relatively well-travelled at night by any number of souls. RP |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
G'day Vlad,
The Ripper taunted the police, from a distance! (if he sent any of the letters). I don't think he would have walked right into a police station, even if it was just to clear suspicion from a vague sighting, that would have taken a long time to trace!
LEANNE |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 3:49 am: | |
Leanne,
I do not think GH is JTR, for what that is worth, but lets say he was. There are cases where the killer enjoys taunting the police by inserting themselves into the investigation. All the better to taunt the police when you feel you are in charge and they can not find you even when you are helping them to find you.
What I do think about GH is that he knows SOMETHING more than he was telling.
Pimp, thug, mugger whatever, he is not on the up and up.
I mean picture this, I am way out in left field here, GH is waiting to mug the guy coming out of MJK's room, he is seen but thinks nothing of it at first. When the guy does leave he has blood on him. Now GH is worried, hides out then thinks he better talk to the police. He is worried because JTR (if JTR killed MJK) has seen him too. So to keep JTR from coming after him, he makes up and absurd description so HTR will know he is not going to talk.
GH could have been there for a lot of things, but I doubt it was for Mary's wellbeing.
Vlad |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 843
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Bob,
Need your expert eye.
Magistrate eh ?? Good, good. Come in handy that will.
Just been looking at Georges statement...again.
You state that you feel George DID sign the document. I have no real problem with that. As you know any statement that is made should be signed off by the person that makes it. If the statement is more than one page long each page should be signed by the statment maker. Am I right?
OK, if I amm right then why does the actual content of Georges Signature alter from the first page to the final singnature ? "G Hutchinson" to "Geo Hutchinson". Isnt that odd to you ?
And would such a discrepancy a) put Hutchinsons statement into doubt (not in terms of content but in terms of validity)? and b) if this was to be used in court (highly unlikely but play along with me here) would this document be inadmissble ?
Im just wondering, legally that is, where his statement would stand if the signatures did not match.
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Monty
PS Have you had any dealings with a Magistrate by the name of Meridith. A stipendairy who conducts the affairs at Leicester magistrates ? Whenever I get one of my cases infront of him I know its going to be a lovely day.....that man knows how to make my Fridays. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Monty,
As it was a witness statement,I doubt very much whether the discrepency would count for much.
If a trial had taken place,both Hutchinson and the policeman who took the statement,would both have given evidence under oath on the stand,and it would be that evidence that counted.Only if the contents differed markedly,or Hutchinson denied putting his name to the document,might it be taken up.
As Hutchinson later made statements to the press,and was well aware of the statement in question,I have no doubt he signed that document.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 849
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Harry,
Many thanks for your input. Im grateful.
Looking at it again I must have had beer goggles on when I last looked at it !!!
The 2 out of the 3 signatures are indeed very similar. I have no idea what I was on about saying they were different.
Anyway, cheers mate.
MOnty
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 404
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
When Reg was interviewed ,according to Melvyn Fairclough he said his mother was a music hall performer. Paul Begg in JtR a Definitive history remarks that a]years later McCarthy was remembered as a local thug,a bully by an east end minor villain named Arthur Harding.He said too that he knew Marie Lloyd and all his daughters were in show business on account of Marie Lloyd. There may possibly be some linkbetween McCarty[the local bully]and Hutchinson who may have been later linked to "show business"because of "favours" done for McCarthy.Its also claimed in MF"s book that Hutchinson received a hundred guinees for doing something connected with the case.Perhaps it was some kind of "hush" money from McCarthy.
Chris Scott"s thread on the McCarthy clan is very illuminating and could tie in with Hutchinson in some way eventually possibly.
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 455
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
By curious coincidence. I received today a catalogue from Janus Books. Up for sale is a reprint of a 1974 booklet by Michell Raper called 'Who was Jack the Ripper'. It is a script for a 1972 B.B.C Radio 4 series 'The Other Victorians'.
For clarification, this is not the interview with Hutchinson's son. This is a script for a radio historical drama broadcast on BBC in 1972. A narrator tells all about the investigation, the narration being fleshed out by dialog that seems to come from press accounts of the inquests and from other documents. Prince Eddy is dwelled upon rather much, with the caveat that the Court Circulars place him in Scotland. The narrator questions (as have I) whether we know that the Circular is accurate. The narrator also considers the team of Eddy/Gull. It actually makes a very good read dramatically.
By the way, in saying that this is not the program Richard remembers I am in no way saying that Richard's program didn't exist. It's just that this isn't it. Perhaps the Beeb did a series on the murders in 1972.
Andy S. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
Some people have questioned as to why Hutchinson needed to come forward and project himself into the limelight,when the witness Sarah Lewis seems not to have named him as the person she saw outside Crossingham's.
The important point for Hutchinson is that Lewis had also not stated that she had not recognised the person seen there,at least not officially.
Staying silent was probably a risk he was unwilling to take.
After monday evening it didn't matter,he came forward and identified himself removing any danger she might have presented.
Monty,
There was many a statement I tendered that would not bear too close a scrutiny,and I doubt I was in the minority.'Harry,s law'"consider everything false except that proved factual,then dismiss the last as unlikely" |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Injecting oneself into a murder investigation, if one is the murderer himself, may or may not have been all that common in the days when the only sentence would have been the rope if the police had smelled a rat and put down rat poison.
But how common would it really be for a multiple offender, wanted by every man, woman and police officer in town, to draw attention to himself in this way, when the first thing to be claimed, or to emerge, would be his very close relationship and proximity to the latest, and by far the most horrific, outrage?
The kind of attention-seeking offenders that we do hear about (and the ones who get themselves caught, obviously) generally try to appear helpful, and to make themselves important. But do they usually volunteer the sort of information that would immediately connect them so closely to the actual offence that suspicions would almost inevitably be entertained by even the most plodding copper? Naturally we wouldn't know of any who had done all this and still not been sussed. The sussed ones speak for themselves about the success of such bravado.
It just seems to me that if GH was the ripper and he did this, then he was pushing his luck further than any other such attention-seeker in criminal history, and got away with it because the police never imagined the ripper could have been so utterly audacious - or stupid.
It's so similar to what the Barnettites propose.
We are expected to believe that a rat or a fish was dangled right under the very noses of the ripper-catchers, yet the bad smell didn't force the force to face up to what was actually causing it.
I still think the police would almost certainly have tried, and succeeded in eliminating both GH and Joe from their enquiries, in the course of checking their individual accounts, fishy or tragic-sounding.
The alternative in either case strikes me as rather less likely.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by caz on March 10, 2004) |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 854
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Caz,
Ever considered GH had no other alternative but to inject himself into the investigation ?
Trying to control what may be a dodgy and unforseen situation.
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Absolutely, Monty.
But I would still find it hard to accept that the police didn't smell this particular rat, caught in this trap of his own making, if that were the case.
And would it have been such a close call that he managed to stop himself ever being violent towards another woman for the rest of his natural?
A thug and a bully, quite possibly. I even think he may have been the first person to look through the window at dawn, aiming to get a share of the previous night's takings before the rent man cometh - seen the unholy mess inside and kept a very low profile while deciding what to do next.
But a serial killer having to inject himself into the investigation, because he had been careless this time, then producing a carefully suspicious description of another man, hoping desperately to send the ripper hounds off in another direction - and luckily for him they meekly go and never return? It just doesn't smell quite right somehow.
If I were in GH's position, I think I might have chosen a safer option like getting out of town fast and running away to sea or something.
Love,
Caz |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day Caz,
Part of what you say makes sense, but why would GH make up such a ridiculous description of the man he asw with MJK and an even more ridiculous reason for stalking her? To my eyes they are ridiculous and it is stalking, and I am not as suspicious as the police usually are.
As I have stated, I think GH had more on his mind that MJK's wellbeing, I also think he knows far more than he let on. Although I do not think he was JTR. What I do not get is why the police believed his outrageous story. I don't know, maybe it was common to watch outside someone's house in those days. I know today that would not be very suspicous.
Have a great weekend everyone, we are starting our St. Patrick's day celebration early and I will not be at work, or in any condition to type for that matter, for the next couple of days.
Vlad |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 855
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Caz,
I agree with Vlad. What you say makes sense. But, as you have pointed out, whats sense to us may not be to Jack.
But on the whole I agree. Hutchinson stinks and Im a bit stumped why the police did not smell him also. Maybe they did and we dont know about it.
Vlad,
Have one for me. St Pat and I share the same day....which means endless amounts of free pints of the black and white !!!
Monty
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi Caz
I agree that it is odd. But the whole reaction to Hutchinson's statement, as so much of the police / official behaviour in the wake of the MJK murder, is odd. (the coroner, the dogs, to allude to but two issues).
They seem to have initially believed his statement and then discounted it, but surely at the point they discounted it they would re-investigate this bloke who admitted he'd been in the immediate vicinity the most likely time (on the information they had) that the murder took place? They don't even seem to have properly validated his actual identity.
On the other hand, the reaction to Barnett seems much more sensible, they initially suspected him, interviewed him (who knows how rigourously, but I would suspect that police methods in thiose days would tend towards harsher treatment than now) and concluded he wasn't the murderer. Of course he may have deceived them, as many serial killers have. But it still seems an unexceptional course of events compared to the treatment Hutchinson was given.
Questions that arise:
1. Do we even know the man calling himself Hutchinson was the actual man in the alley seen by Sarah Lewis?
2. Did the police exclude him because he had an alibi for other crimes (would be interesting if the alibi was for Stride?). Or maybve because he wasn't a fit to their 'profile' (not visibly insane, not Jewish).
3. If he was the actual man on the scene, What did he really see?
4. If he was the murderer, did he think Maxwell's statement would put him 'in the clear'.
And many more. My 'enthusiasm' for Hutchinson is that we have here the only person known to be alone on the scene at or about the time of a murder (of course, I am assuming the 'historical' time of death is accurate - I accept doubt can be cast on this, just as it can on just about every 'fact' in the case). And his statement makes no sense.
I freely admit that it is unlikely that Hutchinson was the murderer, just slightly more likely than most suspects. But I am sure he knew things were other than he said.
Regards
Pete |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
The police could have had grave suspicions about any of the suspects! However, if they didn't have any evidence connecting whoever to the crime then they wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it but be suspicious.
If the newspaper accounts of the time are to be believed (I know, I know, don't say it!) then a multitude of people were carried in for questioning by the police but then released just as quickly. Barnett himself was only questioned for 4 hours. I don't feel there is any way a police officer could have accomplished a thorough investigation of a person that close to MJK in that time.
I am encouraged by Hutchinson simply because the police took up more time with him. They were interested for whatever reason. Maybe they did smell the rat but couldn't set the trap! |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:16 am: | |
Attention was drawn to the person seen outside Crossinghams,once Sarah Lewis had given her information,whether that person sought it or not.
Hutchinson's dilemna was whether Lewis had or would recognize him,she had not claimed she could not.
What odds his story being believed if the police had to search to unearth his identity.
I believe that sooner or later his admitted connection to Kelly would have come to police notice.
Maybe,if he was the killer,by the time he came forward he may have come to believe he was superiour to his fellow beings.One killing or many,the rope could only be put round his neck once,and there have been many who have taken that chance.
George did the only sensible thing that was available to him.
By the way,Hutchinson may be classed as the only suspect brought forward firstly through the casebook.A chap by the name of Carpenter,on the old boards nominated him,way before any book was written.Credit should go to that person.
H.Mann |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hi All,
The fact remains that if the police ever suspected GH of much more than bearing false witness, or being a petty crook who was probably up to no good that night, they did not have the goods that could have put him in the dock for murder.
I keep wondering why GH would not have stayed around to make sure MJK was safe if he was really suspicious of this character he described in such unlikely detail. And I can’t quite believe my own speculation that he was there that night because he hoped to cream off MJK’s takings before she could hand them over to McCarthy’s rent collector on the Friday morning. She hadn’t paid any rent for weeks, so why would this week be any different? And why would GH necessarily know what was due or what her plans might be to pay anyway, if he had simply taken advantage of Barnett’s recent departure to do a spot of freelance bullying? And I have always wondered why McCarthy should have sent Bowyer round to collect on that particular Friday morning, when MJK had apparently coughed up nothing in previous weeks.
I’m now wondering if the following scenario is at all possible:
Could GH have been doing work for McCarthy on a casual basis?
Could GH have been given the job of keeping an eye on Kelly, since Barnett left and the rent had stopped coming in, and trying to ensure what money she earned didn’t immediately get converted into alcohol?
Could GH have helped to find a good paying customer for Kelly, by advertising the services of this young attractive girl with her own room, among the wealthier-looking frequenters of ‘The Jews’ Market’, as Petticoat Lane was also known?
Could GH have found such a customer for Kelly on that fateful night, and hung around waiting to collect from her afterwards so he could take something back to McCarthy the next morning towards the rent arrears?
Could GH have got tired of waiting, then returned in the early morning, looked through the window and found Kelly had been ripped apart? Considering the awful position this would have left both him and McCarthy in if it happened this way, would GH have laid low and waited for someone else to discover the body? Or might he have gone straight to McCarthy and told him what had happened, asking him what on earth they should do next?
It would make sense for McCarthy to want to distance himself as much as possible from the whole sorry episode, so sending an unsuspecting Bowyer round, on the pretext of doing the job GH had been unable to do, might have seemed like the best idea at the time.
Imagine GH’s disbelief at the thought that the ordinary looking gent he had found for MJK could possibly have done that to her. Could he have accepted that he had been such a poor judge? Or would he have preferred to imagine she was killed by an opportunist Jack, forcing his way in when GH’s man had left?
In trying to do the right thing, by going to the police with the whole unvarnished truth and describing the man he introduced to MJK as accurately as possible, GH would face three problems: being questioned about his own actions; describing an entirely innocent customer who didn’t deserve to be linked to MJK’s murder at all; or describing the ripper himself, who would then know exactly who had grassed him up and would be on the warpath.
We know GH didn’t choose to say nothing at all and hope for the best. But I have trouble with the idea that what he did finally say on the record was either the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth, or that the police would have accepted it without looking a tad more closely at our George.
If I was a betting girl, I might put a few quid on the description GH gave being deliberately quite different from the one man he knew had been in MJK’s company that night.
But that might change again tomorrow. 
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Good post.
The scenerio that you suggest is plausible, especially the description being differentt from the man he actually saw.
All we really know is GH, reported a incident to the police on the monday night, after telling of the incident to others, I have my suspicions, if the statement signed by GH, was not falsified by the police, to give a false sense of security to the person they believed could have been the killer.
Richard. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
Such murders,then as now,attract a great deal of rumor.Innocent people are claimed to have acted in a variety of unusual ways.Almost every one seems to know or been told the name of the killer.
It is likely that such rumour told of the person seen outside Crossinghams,and such rumor would certainly state that he could and would be identified.Perhaps something of this nature was also a factor in Hutchinson coming forward.
Of one thing I am pretty sure,that is that Sarah Lewis would not have kept quiet untill the inquest on monday,and that such information that she possessed would have been doing the rounds of Whitechapel,long before Monday dawned.
It is not only the description of the clothing and features,that begs suspicion,but the whole action from first sighting till the entry into Millers Court.
It could not happen the way Hutchinson describes it.
H.Mann. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
Hi all
If we take it as he came forward for a need to cover himself, i.e. as a result of Sarah Lewis's statement (remembering that is speculation) then the question is - why?
OK, Sarah Lewis could maybe identify him in a lineup. But for him to be in a lineup, then he'd have to be found. Not very likely, unless there was something else pointing to him. Sarah Lewis's description wasn't terribly detailed. Maybe he knew Sarah Lewis and thought she would remember his name, when in fact she hadn't, but that seems tenuous, because if she had recognised him she would have said so (although of course the police might have obscured that).
If that is not the case, why did he feel so strongly that he had to come forward? He could have simply disappeared.
OK then, perhaps there was something else that, when the police investigated, would link him to that time and place. We don't know what that is, Caz's scenario is one possibility. (i.e McCarthy knew who he was and that he was 'watching' Kelly). I think it would be interesting to try and work out what else might have existed that would have identified George Hutchinson (whoever he really was) as being that man hanging around. Because if he came forward for the reason we speculate he did, he must have felt the police were going to be able to find him without much trouble.
An alternative scenario is that it wasn't the police he was trying to mislead, it was the Ripper (someone has suggested this before).
Regards
Pete |
Harry Mann.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
These days it is not unusual for a wanted person to appear ,in the presence of a lawyer normally,at a police station and state they are the person police wish to question.Quite a few of these people are in fact guilty.
It is not his coming forward that weighs against him,or conversely clears him,it is what he said,that is important.His evidence is not believable.
There is no direct evidence that would convict Hutchinson,but his presence at Millers court and his statement,suggest to me that unless he can be can be conclusively ruled out,he stands as the foremost suspect,and the most obvious person to have been Jack the Ripper.
Aberline only wrote that he believed Hutchinson's story.He never proved it was factual. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
