|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 199
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:54 am: |       |
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
“In any case, I can't see any valid motive for him being her killer anyway, so option number two is the one I think feel less tempting, although it naturally can't be totally ruled out.”
Hutchinson could simply have chosen to explain his presence in Dorset Street by telling some innocent and inconspicuous story. That would have done just fine. But instead, he told a story in which he did a little more than simply explain his presence then and there; he introduced a character that seemed so conspicuous that it directed attention and possible suspicion away from himself.
It seems fair to say there must have been good reason then for going a step further than only explaining his presence, because the story about this suspicious wealthy man was a riskier one than the innocent story merely explaining his presence. So, what was this special reason? I think it had to have been something criminal. If he had been there with criminal plans or intentions but had aborted them before he executed them, there would have been no reason to try and direct suspicion away, so it must have been something he actually did. The most likely seem pimping and murder. If I had to chose between the two I’d say that murder was a very good reason and a likelier one than pimping to try if you could get the police to look in another direction.
If you add to this that Hutchinson also fits neatly in the probable scenario where Mary Kelly is followed by her murderer and then killed in her sleep, I’d say this would make a valid motive for him being her killer. Someone was.
But this doesn’t mean that I’m convinced Hutchinson was Mary Jane’s killer, I only say there are good reasons to think so. I still keep an open mind regarding other suspects.
Take care,
Franciscus Alexander
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Hahahahaha Robert,
You're beautiful.
I would rather ask, what's with Barbarossa Heliogabalus...
Gustaf Lauritz is my additional names; I usually always put up my whole string of names -- has become sort of a habit -- but never here, for some strange reason. Just thought I'd let things get back to "normal".
"...wouldn't he have done it as soon as he went down the alley to the court? Why hang around in the rain waiting for him to come out?"
Well, maybe he didn't get the idea until that man teamed up with Mary Kelly, and thought... hmmm well OK, I'll take him out when he comes out in Miller's Court after he's been with Mary. Maybe it was the rain that made him give up?
Paul,
Nice suggestion. I love it. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Ah, sorry, Franciscus Alexander (seems like I'm starting a new trend here...)!
I totally missed your post -- seems like yours and mine went through almost simultaneously.
I see what you mean, Frank, but it is a bit puzzling nevertheless.
In contrast to you, I would say that it would be even riskier for him to use such a story in connection with a more serious crime. 'Cause no matter how we look at it, his story is suspicious nevertheless. I would consider it to be more logical to assume that he used it to cover up some minor thing, like mugging or pimping (well, actually pimping was quite a serious crime at the time, although it can't be compared to murder).
To come up with at least a partly fabricated story about a well-dress man to explain his own whereabouts, would seem extremely risky if he had indulged in a murder. At least it does to me.
So if he didn't have any plans on mugging the man (if he existed, that is), I'd say he might have covered up a possible loose pimping activity.
That being said we don't have any indications on or evidence of him doing this things, or of Mary Kelly being connected to some sort of "protective" collaborator during her prostitution periods. But still, we have no evidence or real indications on that he was a murderer either or what his motive should be.
I can't prove it, but I suspect that Hutchinson was nothing more than an ordinary small-time crook.
However, I can't completely rule out him either -- we know too little about him to do that -- but from what we know, I can't see any good reason for him to kill Mary Kelly. If I would consider a suspect, I'd at least want to be able to establish a probable motive. (Nevertheless, I must confess that I haven't yet read Hinton's or Miles' books on the subject.)
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Or, and this is even more likely, Hutchinson was
just a weirdo! Why didnt he just wait a little while and go peek in the window if he was so interested in what was going on. If the fire was kicking, then he would have had plenty of light to put his voyeur skills to work.
Paul
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:05 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"but from what we know, I can't see any good reason for him to kill Mary Kelly. If I would consider a suspect, I'd at least want to be able to establish a probable motive."
This statement just doesn't make sense to me. What was the "good reason" for anyone to kill any of the ripper victims? Serial killers kill to kill and get a kick out of it in some way, that's their reason.
We don't know if Hutchinson was a serial killer or not, but he beats most of the suspects bandied about on the simple point that he was proven to be at the scene of the crime during or very near the time of the murder. The fact that his statement is highly suspicious only adds to the possibility that he was the killer.
I honestly don't get why people give Hutchinson so much benefit of the doubt. I don't know if they are looking for some obvious madman, or some complex drama, or assume that Abberline must have been psychic or ruled him out for some solid undeniable reasons that just never got to us for some reason, or what. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Why don't you all just face facts and admit that George Hutchinson was (is? will be?) a 25th century ripperologist. Didn't anybody read my original post? Am I the only brilliant person here? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:21 am: | |
Hi all
Re motive, Bob Hinton proposes a stalker explanation - that GH was obsessed with Kelly, and killed her in a fit of jealous rage a la Barnett.
This is one part of Bob's book I find very problematic. I can understand the argument that GH followed Kelly and later killed her because he was JTR, and just wanted to kill someone. I don't see why we need the stalker theory at all.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Hi,
I Just see George as a witness, who saw mary jane kelly on the morning of her death, and who followed her out of concern, and curiosity.
I know it has been discussed before, but Hutchinsons son , did speak on a radio programme early 1970s, and he gave an honest impression of his father, that being, 'He found the man so suspicious, he followed them to see all was well,his only regret in life, was that his efforts to help trace this man failed.
He was no killer, just a normal bloke.
The trouble is , we are looking at every witness, and disbelieving them, which in some cases may be warranted, but now we are accusing them as murderers.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Dan wrote:
>This statement just doesn't make sense to me. What was the "good reason" for anyone to kill any of the ripper victims? Serial killers kill to kill and get a kick out of it in some way, that's their reason.
If you want to see Hutchinson as a serial killer, and you in addition is counting Kelly among the true Ripper victims, I can understand your point of view. However, we can't be sure of either.
I for my part can see no evident reason to pin down Hutchinson as Jack the Ripper (at least not as a better candidate than many of the others), and subsequently it therefore would take some sort of motive for Hutchinson to kill Kelly if he wasn't a serial killer. A reasonable motive that I can't find.
But heck, on the other hand, he might have been as well -- it would be unwise to totally cast him aside, especially since we know so little about him. But I for my part think he was just an ordinary East End character and maybe even a small time crook. There are absolutely no compelling basis for looking upon him as a serial killer or Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Richard,
Once again you are giving us vague unsubstantiated possibilities and asking us to accept them as fact. You say:
"I know it has been discussed before, but Hutchinsons son , did speak on a radio programme early 1970s, and he gave an honest impression of his father, that being, 'He found the man so suspicious, he followed them to see all was well,his only regret in life, was that his efforts to help trace this man failed.
He was no killer, just a normal bloke. "
That simply is not true. YOU say that a man claiming to be Hutchinsons son gave a radio interview. You have been unable to find any trace of this interview and even if you had what would it prove? That someone claiming to be the son of the GH gave an interview. So what? Even if he was the son of the GH, so what? GH might have lied to his so or embellished a story. It has been known to happen.
The facts are these:
1. GH did not go to the police at the earliest opportunity to give his story. FACT.
2. GH was in the place and at the time of one of the murders FACT.
3. GH was staying in a hostel which is on a direct route from Mitre Square via the only factual clue (the apron) left by the killer. FACT
These three facts alone make him the strongest suspect yet. Can any other suspect have as much FACT held against them?
No from these facts we can make certain logical deductions. Why did GH eventually go to the police? Deduction - he was forced to. What by? The fact that he was spotted hanging around outside Millers Court. This information only became public knowledge at the inquest and lo and behold as soon as the inquest was over he trots along to the police station.
I only disbelieve witnesses if the testimony they give is inconsistant with reality.
I recall one case on which I sat where an accused gave his reason for being in posession of housebreaking tools at the rear of a shop, was because he was working on his motorcycle which had broken down. He said he was working by the light of a streetlight. But I knew that that particular light had not been working for many weeks, therefore his testimony did not concur with reality - therefore I disbelieved it.
If GH had trotted along to the police when any other person would have done, ie at the earliest possible opportunity, I would probably not have given him a second thought. You have a suspect and you are determined to prove him guilty. I had a suspect and was determined to prove him innocent. With most of the others I could quite easily do this, but with GH the more I tried the more I failed.
Bob
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 14
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Hey Bob,
I'm going to have to agree with Glenn here and add a couple things myself. Like Glenn said, what was Hutchinson's motive? Is there a reason he killed all these women?
Though I think Hutchinson may be a good suspect, I'm going to have to hesitate and let you know that we really don't know that much about him, like Glenn said-I’m sure you realize that too. That right there can't make him the strongest suspect yet, as you say.
Though I will agree with you on that supposed "interview" Richard mentions. It really is nothing special.
Peter
|
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
If someone kills someone that means something to you (I'm assuming MJK meant something to Hutchinson), you think you would go running to the police at the first instance you found out she was dead.
I have to go along with Bob on this one!
Chris 
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 15
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Hey Chris,
How do you know that Mary Kelly meant something to Hutchinson? Is there any reason for your assumption?
When you say that Hutchinson would not go right away to the police after he found out she was dead, do you mean to support Hutchinson as a suspect or go against him?
Because Bob supports him.
Peter
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi.
It was not a supposed interview, it was either 1972/73 , it was advertised in the Radio times, and I listened to it , in the living room alone, on my aunts settee, with great intrest, the whole programme, was about the man who proberly saw 'Jack'.
Any people who doubt my integrity, can verify it for themselves , by contacting the BBC.
The only question arising is 'Was the man claiming to be Hutchinsons son authentic?.
Unless you believe that the producer of this programme, had not done any research, the answer is yes.
I will say, for those of us that have been intrested in this case, for donkeys years, we have been privilged to have watched and listened to a lot of factual discussions on this case,and one should not condemm one, for hearing certain , relevant programmes, that if one is either to young to remember, or if one missed the event.
I will stand by my convictions, that George Hutchinson, was no more than a person , who happened to meet Kelly, who he knew well, on the morning of her death, and I have never doubted his integreity.
Regards Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hey Richard,
I believe Chris Scott posted part of the interview in the "Ripper Media" area under Chris Miles' book-I think.
Richard, how do you not take George's actions suspicously?
Why in the word would he be out so late, watching Kelly?
Peter
P.S.-did you get my "private message?" |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
If you just read the interview, you could just see right through it.
Peter |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
The ripper, and the royals interview I was not refering to.
That is a well known passage, that Reg made, I have no insight, if this was the same imformant to the seventies programmme on radio.there appears to be two hutchinsons on record, one of them is the original, one is not.
I heard the passage in the radio broadcast'My fathers only regret was that dispite all his efforts, he was unable to assist the police in catching the murderer of kelly.
In my mind, to accuse this man of homicide is fruitless.
Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Hey Richard,
I see, sorry about the confusion there, which I really did to myself.
Peter |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2177
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Richard
If you've been in touch with the BBC, did they let you have a transcript?
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
If this interview is genuine, I would have to say there would be some value. Anybody kuckoo enough to do what was done to Mary Kelly would probably display some strange behaviors to their own family. How could you live with JTR and not notice some suspicious oddities? Surely if GH's son had any doubts at all about his father he wouldn't have raked it all up again and risked his father being exposed. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Hi All,
A few words from Aunt Rosey!How are you Bob? How are those dreamy twisted spires of yours? Hey, you will be familiar with the technicalities and methods of 'statement making'. When an officer concerned in the writing of a witness-statement makes an error, or the witness wishes a correction to be made to a part or parts of the statement, both parties sign/initial the correction/deletion. As Derek Osbourne points out in his admiral dissertation, with regard to the statement of Hutchinson, this procedure was never observed. And since Mr Osbourne -with remarkable lucidity- points to just such a correction upon which the Hutchinson 'story' is pivotal in coming to terms with both the testimony of Sarah Lewis, and the events at Miller's Court. Very odd.
Rosey :-) |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 218
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Richard
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'. I check Ross Strachan's 'The Jack the Ripper Handbook' for additional info, and the programme was broadcast 1st June 1972.
The original booklet was published by The Tabaret Press, London, 1974. And was limited to 100 copies. This may be the program you remember.
All the best
Rob |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 816
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Rosey,
Good call.....Im assuming you are refering to the deletion of 'Ten Bells' in Hutchinsons statement.
It also begs the question on Hutchinsons reading ability.
Not going into detail, when Im taking a statement on someones behalf I have to initial the mistake, correct it, date it and CLARIFY this to the person who is making the statement verbally (via myself or interpreter)...and it doesnt matter if they can or cannot read.
The problem is that the witness then should read the statement once it is completed and signed ONLY when the witness agrees with it (it should also be established if the witness understands the statement). If the witness cannot read then it should be read to them with both the witness and officer signing the document (again only if agreed). Of course, it then begs the question on if what George heard read to him and what is on the statement actually match...was it the same thing? In this case the only way it would come to light would be via an inquest (wait george missed that seeing as his statement came after the inquest) or during a court case....chances of that are ??
This said, I cannot see a valid reason why such a high ranking Policeman should fabricate such a document.
I shall have a look at Hutchinsons statement in my PRO pack tonight.
Thanks for the stimulation.
Monty
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Robert,
Sincere thanks for that, I hope now , that will convince non believers that this airing actually happened, it was certainly on this programme, that Reg [ hutchinsons son] gave his statement at the end of the programme.
I am convinced that George william topping hutchinson, was the hutchinson, that knew kelly, regardless of any handwriting experts opinion, infact I have my suspicions, that is entirely possible that this statement was invented for him, with his permission, in a effort to convince the killer, that they had the wrong description, he saw a man , with kelly who was well dressed, but not in that manner.
That , also his walkbouts, may have earned him that five pounds.
I am tempted to suggest more , but can not because of the book.
Regards Richard. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Dear Monty,
By god, laddie...you'll make Chief-Super, yet! My Hutchinson file bulges at its seams. Maybe he should have his collar felt for a further interview?
Rosey :-)
PS. Bet you would like to see his mug-shot, would'nt you? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
