|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 57
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | 
|
Bob, for once I agree with you. I always found it strange that Hutchinson was not asked to identify Anderson's suspect, since if anyone had a "good view of the murderer," it would have been Hutchinson, were his statement credible. It seems impossible to me that neither Anderson, Swanson, nor even Macnaghten could have been unaware of Hutchinson's existence. Lawende made it clear that he could not identify the suspect if he saw him again, so why use him unless he was the only option available? Is there some evidence of which we're not aware that discredits him as a witness? Now, I'm persuaded by the argument that it was actually Levy who was Anderson's witness, but that still leaves Hutchinson out in the cold, so to speak.
Of course, I'm not going to make the leap from Hutchinson as an unreliable witness to Hutchinson as suspect, but I've always had trouble with the sheer detail his statement contains. I'm not ready to completely dismiss him like Packer, but neither can I fully accept the accuracy of his description. Perhaps he was trying to collect the reward. Perhaps he just felt guilty about failing to protect Mary. Or maybe he was the Ripper. He's low on my list of suspects, but his statement is troubling nonetheless. |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I want yout to know that I admire you for your tact and patience on this thread. It seems as if you are in the minority but that does not mean you are necessarily incorrect. I for one am quite sure that there was, as you say, a real broadcast from someone claiming to be Hutchinson's son. Like Bob, I am not convinced that this individual really was Hutchinson's son. Even if he was, the information that he gave may be a rehashing of his father's lies. I will say that I hope that "Reg" really was Hutchinson's son. Maybe there is something in the broadcast that can help us, irregardless of Hutchinson's involvement. In an earlier thread, you described to me how Hutchinson's relationship with Kelly could have been a "mild friendship", and you may be right but I don't think so for two reasons:
1. He gives her money. Money is a very strong bonding agent. Unless it is a strictly business transaction, giving money to a person you know, requires a certain commitment. Especially, as in the case of George, where he didn't have a lot of money to give.
2. He watches her apartment for 45 minutes. I imagine Kelly had good friends that would not have done that.
Bob,
Your theories are very interesting and well written. I would love to get my hands on a copy of your book and hope to soon. I agree with you in that there is a contradiction with Abberline (and the rest of the force) believing Hutchinson at the outset, yet not referring to his testimony later.
What I'd like to know from those who believe Hutchinson may be Jack, is there any idea on motive? I know about the motive for Eddowes, but what of the others? Would not it have been terrible for Hutchinson to murder these women, creating a scare/ reward money and then have him collect on the whole mess?
I win the "Wild Speculation of the Day Award."
Regards,
Rod |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi Rod,
Thanks for your comments,, I feel I am alone, as it appears at least to date that I am the only one who was in the right place at the right time thirty years ago, surely not....
Its amazing I was sitting on the settee in my Aunts living room , a house we shared at the time, with a small portable radio on which I had since my wild youth, listening to a programme on jack which was advertised in the Radio times, and all these years later i am trying to prove this occurance happened. amazing....
Regarding Hutchinson giving her money occasionally, no big deal, he may well have been a soft touch for a pretty face, it is not unknown is it?.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 7:45 am: |
|
Richard,
You say this broadcast was about thirty years ago. Wasn't that about the same time Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor did the Ripper File on BBC TV (of which I have a copy)
I'm wondering if this broadcast wasn't a spin off of that? It might be worth mentioning. Also why don't you contact Melvyn Fairclough. If anyone would know of such a broadcast it might possibly be him.
Good luck in your search!
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Hi Bob.
I May be wrong but I am of the opinion, that the broadcast in question, was before the Watts and Barlow programme which I also watched live.
I Sincerly hope the powers that be at BBC, can take my request seriously, and relay to me some credible confirmation, of the said programme, it would be fascinating to hear the broadcast through tape, so we can all make are minds up.
Best wishes richard. |
Neale C.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 5:14 am: |
|
G'day Bob,
Just finished your book and enjoyed it immensely. I too experieced "warning lights" the first time I read of Hutchinson's claim of standing guard outside Miller's Court on a cold, wet night.
Re. Abberline apparently believing GH's statement, were two or one officers detailed to shadow him around the area in the following days. If this was a genuine attempt to see if GH could ID the Ripper wouldn't one officer be sufficient? Especially with resources always being short. If it were two, it tends towards Abberline suspecting GH and ensuring the safety of his men by going in pairs. What details do we have of this fishing expedition with GH - how long, where did it extend to, were they lowly constables or detectives etc.
Neale |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
I have read your book and found it one of the most enjoyable "Ripper" books that I have read.
I would like to ask you what your thoughts are regarding a point I made in an earlier post.
My point was that although Sarah Lewis merely passed him on her way to Millers court,
Hutchinson felt it necessary,in his statement to admit that he had been waiting oposite the court for as long as 45 minutes.
This part of his statement seems very odd to me and suggests that he was a little paranoid after learning that he had been seen by Lewis.
Regards,
Steven
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Rodney, you ask about the potential motive for Hutchinson to kill people... It's all too likely that killing people for the sake of killing them was the only motive, just like it has been with many, many serial killers.
I, unlike Bob, doubt Eddowes was killed because she knew too much, as her being held by the police that night would tend to throw off any opportunity to make a regularly scheduled meeting. It's possible, sure, but I find it much more likely that she was just another unlucky victim who happened to wander across Jack's path. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 4:29 am: |
|
Dear Steve and Mr Neale ( I don't know your first name sorry)
Many thanks for your kind words, the cheques are in the post!
I think GH was in a very tricky position waiting outside MJK's room. He knew he had been seen by at least one person, it's possible he had been seen by more than one. However in this instance I believe he was telling the truth.
I believe its quite possible that he was waiting for 45 minutes, but instead of leaving, he waited until the man with MJK left and then he went to her room.
When you are telling a lie it is very dangerous to completely fabricate everything - one slip and you are down the drain. The best lies are those that are 90% true, with only the important bits being false. For example in GH's statement:
1. Did he see someone accost MJK and take her back to her room? Yes but it wasn't anything like the description he gave.
2. Did he wait outside Millers Court for 45 minutes? Yes but when the man left MJK GH went to her room, he didn't leave to wander the streets.
Its very difficult to explain to ordinairy decent people how to lie convincingly. People who have to lie for a living like undercover operatives of one sort or another often 'borrow' a friends life and transpose it in with their own. They do this because they know many genuine details, they just apply them to themselves.
For example I could tell you my name was DTP, I was born in Gloucester in 1950, I attended St Jospehs school in Stroud opposite the brewery, my fathers name is JGP and my mothers name is WPP. Her maiden name is WPT. I used to drink in the Fox and Elm public house and lived just around the corner in B Avenue. I joined the navy at the age of 15 in July 1965 and served in Aden, Malaya, Indonesia and Dhofar. I married in 1971 in P. My wife's name is SRP. I left the navy in 1975 and now live in P with my wife and two daughters.
Now I could tell that tale a thousand times and the details would never vary. Anyone checking up on them would find they all fitted, birth records, marriage certificates etc. But the point is although the life is correct it isn't my life - I borrowed it.
Bob |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 8:28 am: |
|
Bob--Hi. "1. There must be a belief amongst senior police officers that GH is not a genuine witness. "
I have to respectfully disagree with the implications. True, you give solid arguments that the police later 'snubbed' Hutchinson as a witness, but we do get some possible indication of why this might have been the case.
Hutchinson's name did spring up again. He is specifically mentioned by Walter Dew in his book "I Caught Crippen". And what was Dew's impression? He believed Hutchinson was an honest, well-meaning man, only that he had been mistaken about which night he had seen Mary Kelly. Dew puts him in the same class as Mrs. Maxwell. He was dismissed as unreliable...not dishonest.
Though there might have been suspicion against Hutchinson in the upper ranks, there is really no indication of it in the records. Walter Dew doesn't mention it, and he was, afterall, Detective Constable, H Division.
All the best. RP
|
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Dear R J,
But you've missed my point. If my theory is correct ONLY senior police officers would have been told by Abberline that GH was not to be trusted.
I believe Abberline deliberately excluded anybody but the very top in an attempt to prevent his misgivings widely known. I believe he told Munro, who obviously had to tell the head of CID, Anderson, and that this information was possibly lodged in an Eyes Only file for the next commissioner who was McNaghten.
This isn't actually as uncommon as may be thought. When the Jack the Stripper enquiry was going on the very top officers knew who he was, the others only thought they knew. Its interesting to talk to people involved in that enquiry. A lot of police officers below the rank of Chief Super believed most passionatly that the killer was a famous celebrity whose body was found with an apparent self inflicted gunshot wound.
I have absolutely no criticism of Walter Dew, I just don't think the lower ranking officers would have been kept in the loop.
I appreciated there is no mention of any suspicion against GH in the records, unfortunately some records are incomplete. And don't forget I am not saying Abberline was convinced GH was the killer, merely that something wasn't quite right with him. After no more killings took place he probably lost interest in the man.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi all
If the police checked at the Victoria Home (in order to verify Hutchinson's address), isn't it a fair bet they'd have checked the books for the night in question? In which case, if they'd found a record of Hutchinson staying at the Home on the night of Thursday-Friday, but not staying there on the night of Wednesday-Thursday, this might have led them to believe that Hutchinson had mixed his nights up.
But if the police did check all this, wouldn't the checking have been carried out before Abberline wrote his report of Nov 12th in which he said he believed Hutchinson's story? Whatever interpretation we put on Abberline's acceptance or apparent acceptance of Hutchinson's story, if it was just a mix-up on Hutchinson's part then surely Abberline would have said so. Therefore on the whole I tend to think that Hutchinson didn't have his days mixed up.
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 5:42 pm: |
|
I don't believe GH got his days mixed up. Don't forget he said he was waiting outside the lodging house looking up Millers court. This is backed up by Sarah Lewis.
If GH had got his days mixed up it would mean that on two consecutive nights a man was waiting outside the lodging house looking up Millers Court at the same time in the morning. A stretch too far perhaps?
Bob |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Sarah Lewis did not necessarily see GH -- she saw "a man" and went on to say he was not tall, was stout, and wore a "wideawake" hat. I am not disputing that it may very well have been GH, but rather pointing out the perils of being too dogmatic.
As for a possible stretch of coincidence, from all we know of the area it would not be surprising that men were standing idly around on Dorset Street in the wee hours on most of the mornings. Sarah Lewis did not express any fear or surprise at seeing either a lone man or a man with a woman at that hour. Given the general destitution of the people and the easy access to prostitutes in the area, it would be most surprising if there were NOT men and women idling all night long on Dorset Street. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Hi,
Before I present something, I want to be sure it's clear I'm not suggesting that GH's description should be considered 100% accurate. It's far too detailed to be. But, one concern I've seen expressed before has to do with how "out of place" his suspect is; far too "well off" a gentleman is described.
I just had a look at the "poverty map" of Whitechapple found here at Casebook. Based upon that map, right next to Miller's Court there's "high income" families. In otherwords, GH's description of someone other than destitute is not so out of wack with the area.
This is not to say he isn't making the whole thing up, but rather, the police may not have dismissed his testimony immediately simply because he described someone better off than the normal Whitechappel resident. The area had a lot of well off individuals/families from which such a person could have resided.
Again, this isn't presented as evidence that GH is accurately reporting what he saw, only that his suspects financial status may not be out of whack with the area.
If he is describing someone he saw, his "too detailed description" could be partly influenced by his notion of what a "well off fellow" dresses like (and he's remembering seeing a "well off fellow).
In contrast, if he's making it up and knows the area (which is a reasonable assumption since he claims to know Mary, hence we can assume he knows the area in which she lives), he could be providing a description of what he figures a "well off fellow" looks like (meaning without having seen one at all). And, he does this because he knows the immediate area has such people. Etc.
Anyway, one aspect that bothered me about GH's descritpion being initially entertained by the police (even if they apparently disregard it later) was the apparent wealth of the suspect. It seems that concern is not valid as there were fairly wealthy (middle class) families next door. Interesting, the map shows the two extremes of poor and wealth next door to each other, with no gradient between.
I realise one could argue that "a decent fellow would not walk down certain streets", but if GH's testimony reflects a "real event", then the fellow he spots isn't decent is he? Why is it that all the interesting things always work all ways?
- Jeff |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Dear Donald,
I didn't think I was being dogmatic. Sarah Lewis sees a man, GH says its him therefore there is a good chance it was. If Lewis alone had said she had seen a man it could have been anybody, if GH alone said he was there he could be lying but when two people, one of whom is the person concerned both tell virtually the same story chances are it's right.
Bob |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Everyone. I was interested in all the posts on this when I got back from my break.
*In The Ripper and the Royals by Melvyn Fairclough
there is an interview see appendix 9 pg245/6 with a man named Reg Hutchinson saying he is the son of George Hutchinson who was interviewed by the police about the murder of Mary Kelly.There is also aphotogragh of GH and some information about
his life including that he was apparently a plumber.
I know that some will dismiss this as being unprovable but maybe it can be kept with other uncertainties while the various theories continue.
I stillcant believe that after such close observation by Abberline Hutchinson fooled him so obviously.Had he thought him to be a serious suspevt he would surely have had him watched day and night as Kosminski apparently was?If he was such a brilliant detective he would also have had some kind of intuitive knowledge about the liklihood of Hutchinson being JtR.I really find it difficult to believe that someone had calmly gone to the police and been taken fairly seriously
when he had not long before hacked MJK to pieces
and knew the whole country was after him.A different type of killer possibly could have..to perhaps kill to silence but to have killed at least four women and mutlated them in a deeply shocking and horrific manner? It doesnt match up somehow.NatalieSevern |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 6:10 am: |
|
Hi,
Several people have trouble with GH being the Ripper as he voluntary inserted himself into the investigation. Why, they ask, would anyone who was guilty do that? Surely he would have just kept quiet?
There is a trial going on at the moment and whilst making absolutely no comment about the guilt or innocence of the accused, he is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence, it is interesting to note the way he inserted himself into the police investigation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/15/nsoham15.xml has the full details.
Bob |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Could GH have hung around like that because he was Mary's procurer? Maybe waiting for his cut of her takings? Maybe instead of asking him for money earlier when she met him Mary asked him for a customer? |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 10:58 am: |
|
Natalie
Just for information, and obviously this is not conclusive, forensic handwriting specialist Sue Iremonger compared the signatures of George Hutchinson father of Reg from his marriage certificate against that of George Hutchinson witness on his statement and stated that they did not match and that in her opinion they were not written by the same person. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 8:56 pm: |
|
We have wondered for a long time what GH was doing outside Mary's door all that time. A whole book was published on this site about how GH was JTR. What else would explain his loitering like that? But if he was her procurer????????????? But that would mean he lined her up with her last customer. |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm still interested in the exercise where Hutchinson was shadowed around Whitechapel by officers after his statement in the hope of recognising Mr Astrakan.
Can anyone direct me to a detailed account of this episode. Were the resorces allocated to this proportionate to any similar attempts with other witnesses? What are your opinions on whether this was a realistic attempt, just a smokescreen to allow GH to think he was believed or a desultory effort just in case. I suppose it is a corollary of one's opinion as to what Abberline thought of GH's statement.
Regards
Neale
|
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Alan I actually thought I sent you a few words of
thanks regarding your above post and its information.Maybe its got lost anyway Thanks! I didnt know that and it makes me more suspicious of Hutchinson and his motives as a result.It shows how easily you can be thrown off track.
Bob if it were the case that Hutchinson was the killer of Mary Kelly then I do think a serious case could be made.Its his being JtR that I have
the problem with. Natalie. |
Ripperhistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:41 am: |
|
Well, if we take into consideration that GH may have been on the criminal fringe, it is very possible that he would pay very close notice to how somebody looked, ESPECIALLY if they were dressed in items that were expensive and interesting to a potential thief, or just somebody who didn't have "nice things" but desired them.
For example, imagine you are in a parking lot and there are 15 cars. 14 of the cars are average joe $15,000-$20,000 cars and the 15th car is a Countash Lamborgini. Chances are you are much more likely to remember more details about that car than any other. You would very likely note the color, interior, wheels, shape, maybe even the driver, even if you were not a car buff, just seeing such an expensive and exotic item makes you notice it.
If the man that GH describes was such a "sore thumb" sticking out for a mugging, then chances are somebody would take great notice of what he was wearing and what he looked like. Seeing something very out of place in your normal environment generally forces you to take quite a bit of notice in it.
I have been walking before late at night and seen somebody suspicious walking on the other side of the street. From about 30-40 ft. I took careful notice of his height, weight, clothesd, haircolor, and walk. I did this because he had been running real fast and then suddenly started walking when he saw me. He then proceeded to a parking garage (where my car is parked) and almost entered, and then started walking back from where he came from without ever going into the garage. he looked very suspicious to me and I watched him for a while just in case he was doing something criminal. If I had been asked to describe him, I would have been able to describe him very well. So, to say that a description is outlandish is not always accurate. Some people are very observant, and a 20-30 second staredown can tell you A LOT of details. GH was inches away from this guy, so it is not that surprising that he could describe his eyebrows and moustache and clothing very accurately.
At any rate, I don't know whether GH was the ripper or not, but to say that he was lying simply because he had a lot of detail in his description is not a very good reason to doubt his story.
I have an excellent long term memory and I can remember images (not words) exactly as they appeared. I can remember clothes that people I know wore in junior high school, where I sat in first grade and kindergarten, and all kinds of other images exactly as they were at the time. This is probably unusual, but at any rate, some people definitely can remember stuff after having just one concentrated glance, I am one of them.
Just my opinion,
Tim |
Blast
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:08 pm: |
|
George Hutchinson’s richly elaborate description of the man he saw with Mary Kelly on the morning of her murder is actually a crude composite of previous sightings and newspaper reports about suspicious persons seen lurking around Whitechapel.
A detailed examination of his statement reveals that following a relatively brief sighting of his suspect he still manage to observed 19 separate characteristics about him.
Of these, only four are original (and perhaps not surprisingly these details are among the most extravagant).
Hutchinson outlines the following features for his suspect.
1. Jewish-looking. (First suggested by Mrs Long).
2. Respectable appearance. (PC Smith and William Marshall both noted this about suspects seen with Stride).
3. Long dark coat. (Mrs Long, James Brown and Sarah Lewis).
4. Astrakhan collar and cuffs. (probably based on a press interview with Thomas Bowyer in which he mentions a man seen previously with Kelly who possessed a very smart appearance, wore white cuffs, a long white collar…. the collar ends came down over his coat.)
5. Dark jacket and trousers. (Emily Walter, Pc Smith, Israel Swartz, Matthew Packer).
6. Light waistcoat. Original.
7. Dark felt hat turned down in the middle. (Smith, Packer)
8. Lined collar (Bowyer – see note 4)
9. Black tie with horseshoe pin. (Walter mentioned a man in a black scarf. Pin original).
10. Button boots. Original.
11. Gaiters with white buttons. Original.
12. Thick gold watch with a red-stoned seal. Original.
13. 34-35 years old. (Lawende estimated around 30, Schwartz though 30 for first man 35 for second person).
14. 5’6” (Close to median of height estimates from all witnesses).
15. Dark hair and eyelashes (again a composite of witness statements).
16. Slight moustache curled up at each end. (Again a general composite).
17. Small parcel in hand with strap around it. (based on PC Smith).
18. Red handkerchief (Lawende).
19. Pale complexion (Schwartz and others).
The button boots, gaiters with white buttons, and light waistcoat are an obvious progression from the astrakhan collar and cuffs and so that leaves only the horseshoe pin and gold watch with the red-stone seal as truly original features.
Given the time of night, relatively dim light, and the distance between Hutchinson and the suspect – further doubt must also be cast on these characteristics.
Since most of London was avidly following the case in the papers, the descriptive features mentioned above were all firmly in the public domain.
It therefore seems likely that Hutchinson’s suspect was little more than an invention and compilation. A pick-and-mix suspect who conformed to the general expectations of the police - a major factor in Abberline’s decision to take him seriously.
|
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:43 pm: |
|
What you are suggesting is that GH must have saved newspaper clippings and other info that contained all of this information and after studying it he came up with a composite of all of the witness descriptions so far? That's alot of work. It seems unlikely that he would have had all this information saved in his head
after reading it once.
Why would he do this? If he wanted to deter suspicion he probably could have just said he was 5'7" with a dark coat and hat and looked suspicious.
What, in your opinion, would be his motive for lying?
I see your point, but I don't think that it necessarily means that he was lying. It is perfectly possible for somebody to notice numerous details about somebody with 10-20 seconds (read my post above). And, GH got closer to him than anybody else besides his victims. Everybody seems to be saying it was dark, but nobody doubts any other witness description when they were in the dark, and some of them described colors and facial characteristics.
The best witness is a witness who saw a lot, remembered a lot, and reported a lot. It is obviously possible that he was lying, but if he wasn't, this information is very important
1) Jewish looking and respectable appearance are really based on who is doing the describing. Kind of irrelevant information unless there is a criteria on which this is based on that we can all understand.
2) Long dark coat. C'mon, that seems to be overwhelmingly common. I don't think you would need to rely on other witness reports even if you were lying to come up with this one.
3) Astrakan cuffs. Well if Boyer was right, then why wouldn't GH have seen a man with the same type of clothing?
4) 5'6", moustache, and dark hair. HMMM, well isn't that close to what the great majority of the ripper community believes that the killer probably looked like? So, if GH saw the guy, he probably would have looked like this. What is so wrong with that description.
5) It seems that your major problem with GH is that he used too much detail in his description. Using this line of reasoning, all of the witnesses have overlapping descriptions to a certain degree, are you suggesting that each witness copied off of a previous description. GH may have been a very observant guy. One could argue that his description does not deviate from what would be expected.
I don't know whether the account was real or not, but the fact that he bothered to report it, that it follows closely with what other witnesses saw, and that he was familiar with the area enough to describe the event shows that it is very possible he was telling the truth.
According to GH, he found this guy suspicious immediately, not after he saw him throw MK down or do anything suspicious, he had PLENTY of time to study this guy as MK and the suspect walked down the street. The other witness accounts were from people that were SCARED of the guy they saw, and most were at a further distance. GH actually appears to have been aggressive towards the guy by looking in his face and following them. Apparently GH was not scared which would fit perfectly with why he would have a better description, he was AGGRESSIVELY FOLLOWING THE COUPLE BECAUSE HE WAS SUSPICIOUS. HE AGGRESSIVELY LOOKED AT THE SUSPECT, SHOWED NO FEAR, AND GOT CLOSE TO HIM.
This leads me to believe that he would have a much better description than any other witness, the rest of them were not doing what GH was doing. Scwartz was scared and running. GH actively pursued his suspicions -- I think this is a very important point. GH is the ONLY WITNESS THAT ACTIVELY PURSUED WHO MAY HAVE BEEN JTR. I don't think that this point can be overlooked.
What do you think ladies and gentlemen?
|
blast
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Hi RH,
I take your point about Schwartz being a poor witness given his fear and flight, and can see why some people believe George to be an important witness.
However, the sheer amount of melodrama and theatre in his statement must surely make us question his credibility.
I don't think George Hutchinsons would have any particular problems remembering the core elements of the description if he had followed the case extensively in the newspapers and in street whispers.
I think anyone attemtping to mislead the investigation would have spent sometime thinking their approach through before contacting the police, and would have got the outline of the story fairly straight.
You are absolutely right about the level of detail being the trigger for my doubt however. Excessive and over elaborate detail is apparently
a well-known red flag for investigators, and it is this which casts doubt on Hutchinson's integrity in my mind.
I remember a murder case in the UK a few years ago when a man was convicted of murdering his wife after he staged a mock raid on his house and 'kidnapped' of his wife.
A friend of mine was working the case as a reporter and said that her suspicions were immediately aroused when he made a claim that one of the raiders was wearing a clown mask. This extra detail seemed out of kilter with the rest of his story about violent masked men binding and gagging him, and certainly began the process of doubt for many in the media who were following the case.
His story was later proved to be false and he was convicted.
The thing which first made me doubt Hutchinson is the almost theatrical way he appears to be playing with the investigators.
The melodramatic line 'He looked at me stern'is the first clue that Hutchinson is perhaps telling a story rather than just recounting details.
By using the composites mentioned earlier he is confirming what the police already know and this probably enhances his credibility in that his story 'adds up'.
He also successfully plays on preconceptions and suspicions by coming up with characteristics which fit the idea that the murderer was a Jewish gentleman Doctor.
I can only think that to a physically and mentally exhausted Abberline, the story must have offered real hope - and thisis why it was accepted.
However, I wonder how long he remained a credible witness once colleagues and senior officers had read through the statement in detail.
The ultimate red flag for me is the red hankerchief and I'm sure someone must have reviewed this with suspicion.
The rather painfully constructed story is thrown in with relish. You can almost imagine George thinking how am I going to work this bit in without it seeming ridiculous...oh I know I'll have Kelly say she has lost hers and then have him brandish it as a replacement.
Hutchinson's statement shows just how keen he was to emphasise the colour too, knowing that it tallied with the best piece of evidence from the Lawende sighting. He says: "He then pulled his handkerchief a red one out."
The theatre of his Sunday sighting of the killer in Petticoat Lane (again pandering to the Jewish angle on the case) is pure invention. He doesnt even see fit to mention this to the police in his statement - knowing perhaps that that would be to play his hand one bit too far.
Instead he finished his statement with the words Abberline so desperately wants to hear - 'Can be identified.'
IMHO the man seen with Kelly was a fabrication - something which makes George Hutchinson the last person we know who saw Kelly alive.
Given that police investigations often start at that point, Hutchinson's motives for coming forward are perhaps more apparent.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:48 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Strange to you! It's strange for me to think that a wealthy person would stroll anywhere near Dorsett Street wearing his finest, at that hour of the morning. Even if he was just seeing how the poor lived, (as some people believe the wealthy did), he could have left the jewellery at home where it was safe."
Yes, exactly. And that is probably one of the main reasons why Hutchinson's testimony (at least that part) was a fabrication, for whatever reasons he had. The man probably never existed, but was created by Hutchinson. No need to jump to far-fetched theories on that one.
All the best
G, Sweden
-------------------------------------------------
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:37 pm:
G'day Glenn,
"Hutchinson's testimony (at least that part) was a fabrication,.."
No! It is YOUR BELIEF that that part of Hutchinson's statement, (he didn't testify), was a fabrication!
LEANNE
------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 5:37 pm:
G'day Glenn,
The part of George Hutchinson statement that is hard for me to 'swallow' is that he said he waited outside for three-quarters-of-an-hour because he was concerned for the safety of a prostitute that he'd met on a number of occasions, then gave-up and just walked away without checking, and didn't come forward until after the victim's inquest had concluded.
LEANNE
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
It is possible that Abberline said he believed Hutchinson because of politics. The newspapers were beating the police up mercilessly and Warren had just been driven to resign. Abberline knew that everything he did was being watched and criticized. Even if Hutchinson came off as not credible, Abberline would have to be careful. He wouldnt want the next headline in the Star to read, "Abberline Ignores Important Witness". So to protect himself he follows up on it. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:22 am: |
|
Hello everyone,
Look at it this way. Let us suppose that Abberline hearing GH realises that he is telling a load of porkies. What are his options?
1. He can accuse GH of lying in which case all GH would have to do is to say prove it and then keep stum.
2. Or he can he can publically say that he believes him but then keeps him under close surveillance. Two police officers were allocated to go around with GH. Were they there to assist him in trying to pick out the man he said he had seen (something which didn't happen with any other witness)or were they there to keep an eye on him?
Abberline would of course have to inform his superiors of the ruse. Did he do this? We don't know. But - Monro who took over after Warren gave an interview in which he said he expected the Ripper to be caught shortly - where did he get this information from?
And two senior officers dismiss GH as a viable witness. Why did they do this unless Abberline had tipped them the wink?
This is not an uncommon strategy. There was a case a few years ago where a man was stabbed to death in a car with his girfriend present. She gave a detailed description of the killer. The police said they believed her and were desperate to find this man. They even put her on TV to make an appeal for help.
The truth was they knew she had committed the crime and simply played along to lull her into a false sense of security while they gathered the evidence. They did and she is now serving life.
Bob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
Very interesting post!
And certainly an interesting point about that modern case; it just shows that the scenario is not improbable at all.
Just for curiosity: I didn't know that Abberline had two police officers following Hutchinson. What is the source of that; have I missed something in the documents or is it from a paper article?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 361
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
It was not something from a newspaper article, the source is an official report by Abberline himself, which he wrote on 12 November 1888. He wrote the following:
“An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.
Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 am. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased.”
If you have Sugden’s ‘Complete History of JtR’, there’s something about it on page 338 of the paperback edition. In addition to the above statement it says that Hutchinson and some officer(s) were out searching again on 13 November.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2314
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:35 am: |
|
Aha.
Thanks, Frank.
I had completely forgotten about that passage in the report.
There is too much [blip!] information in this case...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 12:51 pm: |
|
"and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany with him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible"
Frank,
I would suspect that the police were with George Hutchinson in a way quite similar to the police accompany victims of street crime today. I presume that this is not just a London thing, but if you report a street crime, ie: mugging or ABH, GBH etc: The police will take you around in a car to see if you recongise anyone who was involved.
I feel that this is what the police did with Hutchinson and he was never "followed" or even suspected.
Lee
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2316
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Hi, Lee,
I guess you are right.
Whether he was suspected for anything or not, we can't say for sure, though. But I think you're correct in assuming that they probably just accompanied him.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 362
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I know what you mean – at times I want to pull out my hair ‘cause there’s so much to know and you don’t know where to find it, but at others I curse the case ‘cause there’s just too little [blip!] info…
Het beste,
F |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 363
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 6:25 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
George Hutchinson remains a mystery to me, really. He’s the only known person to have acted suspiciously in connection to one of the murders, yet the police don’t seem to have suspected him. In fact, they even seem to have believed his account, sent him around the district with some police officers two times and then he disappeared into thin air again.
What seems so strange to me is why Abberline believed him when his story was so obviously dodgy. One may have expected that, when the conspicuous man Hutchinson claimed to have seem and would know again wasn't found, the police would have thought again and as a result would have followed up on Hutchinson. Yet, they didn't.
But like Glenn, I guess you’re right in saying that it was normal police procedure to accompany him ‘round the district to look for the well dressed man.
All the best,
Frank |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 572
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 3:05 pm: |
|
In doing a bit of reading of the press reports, I came across this one. I've not noticed anything in the British papers (yet), describing anything similar. First, here's the press cutting:
Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Saturday, 10 November 1888
Right opposite the passage leading to Mary Jane's room there is a big lodging-house where the charge is four pence for a bed. Some men congregated about the door at midnight are sure they saw a man and woman, the latter being Mary Jane, stop to laugh at a poster on one side of the passage, which offers £100 reward for the Whitechapel murderer. The man must have enjoyed the joke, for he himself was the Whitechapel murderer beyond all doubt. The men who saw him can only say that he did not look remarkable.
Ok,
What caught my eye was the description of the two people "laughing". This is similar to what GH testifies, that the two interacted and had a laugh over something.
The time is wrong (about midnight), and in this article the customer is "not remarkable". Since GH was supposed to be standing by himself, and this comes from a "group of men", GH could not have been one of that "group". He couldn't be the "non-remarkable customer" either, as he's spotted standing there later.
Given the errors in time estimation, and in the press in general, one could probably argue that the important detail is the similar description of the interaction between the two people. The "joke, or the laughing", might be memorable, even if the time of the event was not.
And, since this report appears before GH's testimony was public, it can't be that GH's testimony created this one. If this, however, appears in the British press before GH testifies, he could have read it, and incorporated it into his story (presuming he's lieing) or he could have witnessed the same event from a different vantage point (making his "notable description" of the customer at odds with the "non-remarkable description" given here.
And, of course, all the usual concerns over the accuracy of the press must be considered as well.
Note, I'm sure if we "take this as a real event" then both "GH as unreliable, but well meaning, witness" theories and "GH as Jack" theories can both incorporate this report well enough.
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Bob
Wow the thread from the grave eh!
Have read through these points carefully
Point 1. Wouldnt it be GREAT if GH could prove his whereabouts! Where that was is is irrelevant.. but if there was some sort of proof right or wrong ,GH would MOST definately have kept stum!!
2.As to the two chummies! Odd that! strange that someone thought GH important enough to delegate two officers to follow GH when officers were not exactly thick (!) on the streets
As to Monro Theres a real prob here I think....where did that come from? I love the quote from the A-Z that says he had an 'elephantine memory for a grievance'!!!!! A great line!... but there is of course his 'The Ripper was never caught but he should have been' line..
Hmmmm odd that his memoirs(if thats what they are) make no mention of the Ripper case at all!
Hmmm Mr Monroe a dark creature in the case I say.....
Well?
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Bob
Food for thought here eh..AND also as to the case you quote! Yes I remember that one she was ok a tad dodgy but verrrrrrrrrrry convincing for a few weeks I remember! initially she was convincing but being the usual suspicious type!!! I remember saying 'It was her what done it' at the time!!!!!and I was right 'eh!!!!!!
Suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
A few points that occur to me with regard to Hutchinson:
-nobody in the police force is recorded as having him down as a suspect which happened with Kosminski,Druitt,Ostrog and Tumblety and maybe a couple of others but not Hutchinson.
-Abberline may have been aware of a suspect who looked like the man Hutchinson was describing-hence his interest.
It has been recorded that Mary Kelly was seen by several people to have been talking in the Brittania pub during the Wednesday or Thursday evening before her death to a dark haired well dressed man in dark clothes but clean white shirt
who looked a "gentleman".It could have been this chap that Abberline was on the look out for.
Natalie
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Nats!
As to Hutch!..Yup the problem is of course that he's not actually mentioned!!!...Seems to be someone who observed rather than been observed by the boys in blue!
I love the idea of this dark haired man in the Brittania with the 'clean shirt' !!!! something of a novelty in the Brittania I'd have
thought!This looked like a gentleman' thing is a worry tho 'eh?
Suzi
(good to chat again 'eh)
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I know even Chris Miles says that his book "On the trail of a dead man" requires a "leap of faith", but he has asked some really important questions.
For example, why did Hutchinson spend all that time on the pavement opposite Millers Court just to see when the man came out? Could it be that he was waiting for the man to come out so he could go in and kill Kelly? Did he give a fake discription just in case anyone saw his prolonged stay outside Millers Court?
Lee |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2336
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 5:18 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
It is quite possible, I can't rule it out.
But if that was the case, I doubt if he was Jack the Ripper, since that kind of behaviour (hanging about for so long everybody to see him) would be a bit unusual for him -- he could be the sole killer of Mary Kelly anyway, though.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:15 am: |
|
Hi Glen,
I dont believe he was the ripper, but, as you say he could have murdered Mary Jane Kelly.
Is it also plausible that he was Kelly's pimp and set up the "date"? This would explain how the discription came to be so detailed.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi,
I believe there is a intresting point to make about Hutchinsons sighting, he states the man walked sharply which would indicate that kelly would have been walking faster then she felt comftable with, which would indicate that this man was in no mood to hang around.
I recall Mrs Coxs neice statement to Colin Wilson' 'my aunt said she heard kelly say 'All right my love, 'Dont pull me along' which could mean that she saw the same man as hutchinson saw entering the court, for she describes him to her neice as having been 'A real toff'.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi,
Another point the man seen loitering opposite the court by Lewis was described as stout.
Hutchinson [ if the picture that is supposed to show a picture of george is anything to go by does not depict a stout man]
I appreciate that the picture of George[supposed?] was taken in later life but he looks a man of slight appearence, and that picture was taken when living conditions were a darn sight better then 1888.
At the time of the murders George Hutchinson [ if the man shown in publications is accurate] would have proberly have been less weight then a 1920s/30 photograph.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Hi all
Monroe is becoming a slight worry here the more I read about him...allegedly after talking to Cassells Magazine in 1890 Monroe remarked that the police had 'Nothing positive' by way of clues.Following this up with the comment to his grandson that'the Ripper was never caught,but he should have been'Also sons Charles and douglas referred to the 'theory' as a 'very hot potato'..tantalising of course because we'll never know what ot how hot this particular potato was!!
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 369
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
“… but the man he says he saw was probably not the ripper because he had let his face be seen-even if he tried to hide his face he seems to have made too much of an exhibition of himself for him to have been the ripper-waving red handkerchiefs around in Commercial Road and laughing loudly with Mary Kelly---doesn’t sound like the ripper to me. Nor does Hutchinson-for the same reason.”
Although it would have been an enormous risk to come forward if he actually was the Ripper, I don’t think Hutchinson really made an exhibition of himself. On the contrary, he tried to draw as little attention as possible on himself by giving a sort of by-the-way explanation of his presence and, more importantly, by offering a suspect almost larger than life. It’s as if he was saying: why I was there isn't important – the important thing is that you have a possible suspect, so go look for him. Of course, from whatever angle you look at it, his account as a whole remains suspicious and in that respect Hutchinson was conspicuous indeed.
“If he really did stand outside Mary Kelly’s court yard for 3/4's of an hour where he could have been seen loitering by several passers by including Mrs Cox then he wasn’t acting in a way that was consistent with the evading and elusive behaviour of the ripper.”
This remark makes me think of the Chapman case, where the Ripper didn’t chose Chapman as a victim until people as well as the sun were about to rise. The fact that he didn’t strike in near daylight before or after Chapman and that he only waited a week after Nichols might indicate the Ripper was very needy. He wasn’t stopped by the rising sun nor by the realisation that people were about to rise. Maybe he just couldn’t find the right victim at the right time and wasn’t able to just stop and abort his ‘mission’ once he had set his mind on finding a victim and fulfilling his dark needs. That may have been the reason why he didn’t seem to have cared much for the risks he took then.
If Hutchinson was the Ripper, his loitering about just outside Miller’s Court without really caring for the risks he was taking seem to have been the same sort of behaviour. Whoever the Ripper was (if he was her killer), getting into Mary Jane’s room while she was asleep would not have been out of character with the behaviour displayed in Chapman’s case either.
Maybe the Ripper was just lucky in Chapman’s case.
All the best,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Hey!
At the risk of being contentious...........Perhaps GH and Sarah were an item and therefore cooked up an alibi !!!
Sounds daft I know.....but weirder things have happened!!!!
IF this was the case then maybe that could explain the tardiness in coming forward on both parts a sort of I will if you will maybe....
Don't know ...just a thought
Suzi
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
