|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:35 pm: |       |
I have always been leary of too detailed a description under these kinds of circumstances. After 13 years of reading thousands of witness descriptions, I have only seen maybe two that were that detailed that actually matched the suspect when he was apprehended.
Mikey |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 218
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Hi Michael,
How many are that detailed though, even if incorrect? (especially if incorrect I should say!) The reason I'm asking is that it may be common, or not uncommon anyway, for witnesses to give very specific details, be highly confident in their testimony, and to have the best intentions, while at the same time to be way off base in "factual accuracy".
If such descriptions are often given, and often wrong, it might fit with "normal witness behaviour" just as well as with "guilty person trying to divert investigation".
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi all
The passage above, posted by Chris, begins "On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there..."
This seems at odds with Bob's idea (I hope I've understood him correctly) that GH took himself off to Romford after the Eddowes murder, there to lie low.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 871
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
The passage in the statement GH made to the press contains this part which interested me:
He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly
I was trying to work out the logistics of "I put down my head to look him in the face." Of course we have no idea of Gh's height, he well have been considerably taller than the man's estimated 5ft 6in, but I think the most likely thing is that GH actually crouched down and so was looking up at the man. So some of the more detailed items (watch chain etc) would have been possible at eye level, or at least much closer than normal.
What worries me is not only the detail but the descriptions of colour (red stone, red hankkerchief, brown gloves etc). Color vision at night is much impaired (in some people virtually non existent) so this aspect of his testimony does give pause for thought
Chris |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 353
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Chris,
That logistical detail has always struck me as well. As you say, he must have crouched down or tilted his own head to the side in order to look up at the man's face.
The significance here is that this behavior would make it quite obvious to the man that he had been identified, and the man's stern glare in response confirms this. Difficult to say what an insane killer would do, but this would seem almost to eliminate the man from suspicion. Why would JtR risk murdering Kelly if he knew he had been identified with her earlier?
More than likely, he was just a john who was annoyed at being seen.
Andy S.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 505
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hello
If the man Sarah Lewis described seeing at 2:30 on the morning of Kelly's murder, was Hutchinson, then Hutchinson was 'not tall, but stout.' If both Hutchinson and the man he was describing were both about the same height it would require Hutchinson to contort his body to be able to peer into the darkness afforded by the mans cap to get a good look at him. He might also be risking a punch in the nose for disturbing a client of Kelly's who did not wish to be seen. I would tend to agree with Andy that the gentleman was a trick who did not wish to be recognized.
Disregarding the reliability of Hutchinson's description for a moment, it is worth looking at the probability that Sarah Lewis, who might also have been Mrs. Kennedy, gave a reliable description. Lewis appears to have identified Hutchinson but she went on to elaborate on a dubious tale of seeing a man in a high round hat who enticed Lewis and a friend into a back alley, from which they fled when he started feeling under his coat for some object. She implies a connection between the two men she saw on separate occasions but does not come out and make the direct link.
I would hazard a guess that both Hutchinson and Lewis were engaging in at least partial fabrication in the accounts they gave. Further that they embellished the descriptions of the people they chanced to see on the morning of Kelly's murder.
All The Best
Gary |
Brandon Krogh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
For those who are doubtful of GH's description of the man he saw with MK. Isn't it possible that if he actually saw the man twice, once loitering at the corner of Thrawl Street and then again in the company of MK, that his description is an amalgamation of these two sightings? Obviously the man would have had less reason to cover his features with his hat at the first encounter. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 509
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Brandon.
Based on Chris Scott's article, as mentioned above, Hutchinson may well have seen the man who walked away with Kelly twice. It is strange that Hutchinson did not add some authentication to his description by mentioning that he had seen the man under better lighting conditions before the stranger came into contact with Kelly. Then again he would have had no real reason to notice the stranger.
I checked a number of books including Chisholm, et al; and Curtis who focus on the newspaper accounts and I can't find any mention of the double sighting.
Nevertheless, If the Pall Mall Gazette has the story correct, then you may well have a valid point.
All The Best
Gary |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Although the Star and Pall Mall Gazette 14 Nov. provide the fullest accounts of Hutchinson’s press statement that I’ve seen, the Times 14 Nov. (available on the Casebook) is not far behind.
All three of these reports include Hutchinson’s claim to have first seen the man at the corner of Thrawl-street. Phil Sugden (Ch. 16, p. 335 – revised paperback edition 1998) also says of Mary: “She walked off towards Thrawl Street and there she met the man Hutchinson had already seen standing at the corner.”
So this is not a claim that only appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette, although similarities between the Star, PMG and Times coverage may suggest all three gleaned their information from a single Central News or Press Agency report.
Best wishes
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2030
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Hi
Of course, if GH simply overtook the man from behind, he'd have had no reason to look at his front. Even if the man was loitering, GH wouldn't have had much reason to look at him long enough to take in a great amount of detail before walking on. If GH intended to rob the man he might have engaged him in conversation, then walked on ahead to wait for the man to come up level with him again. But if he wanted to rob him, wouldn't he have done so the second the man entered the alley to the Court?
I loved "one thing I noticed".
Robert
|
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Jeff,
Actually, the majority of witness descriptions (at least in my experience) of unknown subjects are very vague and are generally limited to clothing, height, weight and coloring. Interestingly enough, the most thing witness statements will have in common and that are accurate (at least with each other) is clothing.
Mikey |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Hi Alez
Thanks for the clarification. I see that you are correct after checking the accounts more carefully. That will teach me to do a quick cursory check of a number of sources.
I guess the point remains that Hutchinson did not mention the gentleman except in passing. I would anticipate that he would have had no reason to take a close look, even if the lighting was such that he could have gotten a good long look at the gentleman.
All The Best
Gary |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:04 am: | |
I think that the police may have taken george hutchinsons description very serious. I am not sure of the dates so feel free to correct me if I am wrong but GH came forward on the 12th the same day doctor tumblety was arrested.
I tend to agree with Richard when he said that the police often leave out bits of information that they might consider vital.
I would like to know more about hutchinson and his relationship with Kelly I think that it is possible that he made up the story about seeing a man on the street corner with Kelly. However, he could have became aware of this strange man in a different setting hence getting a better look at him. Not wanting to incriminate himselfe he came up with the story on the street.
I think that george could be an important figure and I would like to know more on the nature of his relationship with Kelly.
All the best,CB |
thomas schachner
Sergeant
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
hi there,
the following just struck my mind. i don't know if it has been discussed before so i just drop a few lines. --- maybe this one should go to the barnett thread then .-)
hutchinson knew mjk for a while. so i personally think it's not that devious that he knew barnett aswell -- i mean as her "longtime" lover??
so...if he indeed saw the ripper, can we therefore say, barnett didn't kill mjk, because he would have recognized him for sure? .-)))
just a thought!
greetings from germany
thomas.
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
I think George Hutchinson was for the most part telling the truth, i don't think he would have been worried about incriminating himself, as why didn't Joe Barnett make up a story too (police would have Joe down as a likely suspect), for the most part i think GH described clothing well enough, the chain and the stone (he might have thought the stone red but may not have been), i think he may have added in view of Mary Kelly's death the bit about him 'i put my head down to get a look at him' as to appear a suspiciously enough concerned citizen. In all likelyhood GH probably got a basic description and wasn't bothered too much at the time as he would have been used to seeing unfortunates being with their clients, but in GH statement were he said he heard, the man whisper something to kelly, then they both laughed then the man said to kelly 'you'll be alright now for what i have told you'.... i would say this was accurate. Also for the man to have whispered to 'Kelly',Hutchinson must have been quite near, but i don't think GH saw the man's face in full view, other body language can indicate to a person that one may be angry, but people on the whole cannot describe it, especially for a statement. People also can get body language incorrect just as much as getting what they saw incorrect (and most people do). |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
George Hutchinson said in his statement to the police that he had seen Mary Kelly with a dark-haired man approx 5ft 7inches,but making my point,he also said in his statement that he saw the man whispering to Kelly,something he didn't hear,but whatever it was both the man and Kelly laughed,and Hutchinson heard the man specifically say to Kelly "you'll be alright now, for what i have told you", i think this is important to the killing of Kelly. As, when the police arrived at Kelly's murder scene they had to get McCarthy to break down the door, as it had been locked with a key, but Mary Kelly had lost her key (or so she thought) several weeks before, she had been letting herself and clients in through the door by lifting the latch,by putting her hand through the broken window pane, because she and McCarthy had no key. The person who killed Kelly had locked the door with the key, so she must have met her killer before Nov 8th-9th, i would guess that he felt he had to gain her complete trust, so he met her on one occassion made her feel safe, said something so that on another meeting ,she would be reminded of him and feel completely safe in his company. I think that this something that Hutchinson didn't hear the man whisper to Kelly, was the trigger for Kelly to tip up complete trust to him, the... 'you'll be alright now ,for what i have told you' was the killer stating this reassurance of trust. I'm beginning to think that the ripper was grooming his victims for their death, as also in the case of Eddowes she was seen to be very comfortable indeed with the killer. |
Steve Borley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
This George Hutchinson discussion is fascinating. I’ve been reacquainting myself with JtR, mainly through Paul Begg’s ‘Uncensored Facts’ and Martin Fido’s ‘CDD’ though with the very helpful ‘Mammoth Book…’ to hand too. I’ve been thinking about what we can absolutely take at face value about GH:
1) He lived in the Whitechapel area.
2) He was in the area at the time Kelly was murdered.
3) He was out all night.
His testimony is pretty odd though. The level of detail of the man he saw with Kelly is remarkable and suggests either an eidetic memory or, frankly, that he was making it up. You pay your money and take your choice on that one I guess!
We can be quite sure he was out and about in Whitechapel that night. Sarah Lewis’ testimony places a man where GH said he was at 2.30am…..so we have some corroboration he was in the area at the time of the murder.
His loitering across the road from Kelly’s room strikes me as similar to Israel Schwartz’s testimony: that he witnesses Elizabeth Stride being assaulted with a man standing across the road lighting his pipe, watching. So both Stride and Kelly had men loitering across the road watching them prior to their death at the site of their death. We can be quite confident Hutchinson was Kelly’s man - and we also know he was locked out of his lodgings for the entire night and did not return home until morning, meaning he has (as far as I’m aware) no alibi for the hours during which Kelly’s attack took place.
"So far, so what?" I suppose. Nonetheless, here we have a local man who we know was in Dorset Street the night of the murder who did not return home before morning and who gave a remarkably thorough description of a man whom he can only have seen for a few seconds. His loitering across the road from Kelly’s lodgings echoes the man watching Elizabeth Stride’s assault.
I note Bob Hinton’s book (which I have not read) fingers GH as JtR……..I shall seek that out. I’m keen to understand why the review says that conclusion is “hard to swallow”. I for one would be keen to know more about GH.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2797
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Hi Steve
It's a very good book. I myself wouldn't call the theory "hard to swallow" though there's one or two elements of it that seem a bit odd.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Hi,
As I have mentioned many times the description of hutchinson seems to describe a person dressed in his best attire, which considering that this was then the day of the Lord Mayors show, is not all that strange, I believe that the man was simply asking kelly if she knew of some accomodation where he could spend a few hours until light, kelly laughed at this approach, and it was then simply a discussion over finance. Kelly saying' All right my love you will be comftable' and he replying 'You will be all right for what I have told you'.
Lets be honest if this was a homicidal killer he was hardly dressed to mutalate.
It is my bet that this man returned to Kellys room with no bad intentions, and left kelly asleep on her bed when leaving the court around 6am.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2800
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hi Richard
This man goes back to Kelly's room, and spends the rest of the night sitting on a chair?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Stranger things have happened, would you have wanted to snuggle up with Kelly on a filthy bed, considering you were obviously not down to your last penny, this man i would suggest was a gentleman note the respectable way he walked with kelly arm resting on her shoulder, he offered his [proberly silk ] hankerchief to kelly, and she being grateful expressed that with a kiss.
It would not have surprised me if the fire was not lit then and the grateful gent was happy enough to sit and warm himself for a few short hours off the streets.
Far Fetched?
It is a much simplier explanation then suggesting that this well dressed person covered his body with kellys blood , and left the room in a state of disaray
Richard.
|
Steve Borley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
All
After posting my message above, I saw the Hutcinson threads on the 'Suspects' board - apologies for going over old ground.
He still seems like an interesting and intriguing character though.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Well Herr Schachner,
A very perceptive post! You should post more often. Mr Borley's contribution includes another observation that provides food for further thought on the enigmatic Hutch.
As Ever, Rosey :-) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2802
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Well, it's debatable just how much of GH's description was fact and how much embroidery/lies. But the simplest explanation seems to me to be that the man was a client, and that at some point after he left Jack (either GH or someone else) entered and killed Mary.
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
If we concede one thing we can explain three behaviors of Hutchinson which up until now made no sense.
1) Stooping down and peering into the man's face
2) loitering outside Mary's room
3) deliberately memorizing every detail about her customer's appearance
All this can be explained if we assume that GH was suspicious of Astrakhan Man. All of Whitechapel was in an uproar. There were Jack the Ripper scares regularly. A number of suspicious looking or acting individuals had to be rescued by the police from mobs. Maybe GH just did not have a good feeling about Astrakhan man. He peers into his face and he stares at him deliberately memorizing every detail he can. Then he loiters outside Mary's door until he is satisfied that they both must be asleep. He decides it must be all right after all and leaves. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Diana
I still think he embellished his story, though. And if he's so observant, why isn't there a sausage about what Kelly was wearing? He says he actually stopped and spoke to her. Nor does he mention seeing Lewis.
Robert
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 4:26 am: | |
Hi,
I still consider Hutchinson a honest and caring person , who was desperate to assist the police, after hearing of Kellys death, a person he had known quite well.
His description given to the police, which may or may not have been the true description released as his statement, was proberly a extremely
good likeness of the man who must in the eyes of the police been the most likely to have killed her.
Let me explain for eg, If a witness saw a man with a red beret on , wearing a grey coat, to publish such detail, would be foolish, for the suspect would cast aside the beret, and stop wearing the grey coat, and proberly avoid capture.
But if a description was isued that did not mention certain clues then the killer may still continue wearing these items , and therefore make detection possible.
It is the same scenerio with Mrs coxs statement, A Blotchy faced man with carrotty whiskers , carrying a quart of ale.
The question i have asked myself is. what if this sighting was a red herring , and indeed her description was vastly different, and just happened to corresponde with Hutchinsons when he visited the police on the monday evening.
It does appear that the police were not looking for a shabby genteel person after the body of kelly was discovered, and Hutchinson with police asistance searched for the man he saw that morning, for some time after, to no avail, for which he was paid the then princely sum of Five guineas.
There is more to this murder than meets the eye, but one thing is certain , Hutchinson was simply a man who met kelly a few hours before she departed , nothing more sinister.
That is of course my opinion.
Regards Richard. |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
I believe GH.He may have embelished his story but the basic description height,colouring,moustache fit with descriptions from other witnesses Abberline believed him too(imagine ducking smilie here as the little devils won't work for me) |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 316
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Hi Diana & all,
I agree that those 3 behaviours only make sense if we concede that GH was suspicious of Kelly’s well dressed client.
However, the thing is that GH wasn’t really suspicious of Mary’s companion. In his police statement he only said that he “was surprised to see a man so well dressed” in her company, which caused Hutchinson to follow the couple. This reason for following Kelly and the man is way too thin for me. And it doesn’t get much better in his newspaper statements, where he said that his “suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed”, but that he “didn’t suspect him to be a murderer”.
GH’s taking the trouble of looking into the man’s face, following the couple and waiting at least 45 minutes in probably cold and wet weather after a 2 or 3 hour foot trip through that same kind of weather is way out of balance with the explanation GH provided for his actions.
Surely news of Kelly’s murder had spread quickly throughout the East End on Friday, so also Hutchinson would have heard about it on Friday or Saturday at the very latest. If we are to believe that Hutchinson really suspected the well dressed man and that he really was concerned for MJK’s safety, it would have been the logical thing to do to tell the police what he had seen as soon as he heard about the murder. Yet, he didn’t.
Of course, there may have been a perfectly logical and innocent explanation for his coming forward only on Monday night, however, IMHO this reason isn’t to be found in the information we’re left with.
Take care,
Frank
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Hi,
I'm sorry but I really can't accept that GH was just a 'honest and caring person'. To come to this conclusion you have to ignore the facts.
The fact is GH didn't come forward with his information until after the inquest on the Monday. If he was such an honest and caring person why didn't he come forward before then?
Look at the sequence of events if he was just a caring soul.
GH sees MJK approached by someone he thinks is suspicious. Because of these suspicions he ducks down to have a good look at the mans features, follows them closely (close enough to hear a whispered conversation) and then waits for a considerable time in the cold and the rain ouside Millers Court all because he thinks the man might be up to no good.
So far so good. Up to now this might just be said to be a logical explanation for his actions.
Then a couple of hours later he hears that MJK has been murdered - so does he rush to the police to give his statement? No he sits back all of Friday, all of Saturday, all of Sunday and most of Monday. Then surprise surprise after it has been revealed at the inquest that a person - in all likelihood himself-has been spotted outside Millers Court at the time of the murder, he suddenly remembers his 'to do list' 'Tell police about suspicious stranger seen with MJK before she's chopped up' and rushes round to tell them.
If Hutchinson had gone to the police at any time before he actually did for me that would place his complicity in the crime in considerable doubt. However the one logical answer as to the timing of his statement must inevitably be that he was forced to make it to explain his presence.
Dont forget GH was dismissed as a credible witness by both Anderson and McNaghten.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
We obviously fundamently disagree on Hutchinsons integriety, i personally cannot see what is so suspicious about his movements that night.
He enters commercial street after a long trek from Romford, he is approached by a person who he was familar with that being Kelly, there is a quick conversation, and they depart.
He had just noticed a man standing close by, and observed this person put out his hand as if to detain Kelly.
He did not consider the man menacing, however he was curious enough to look at this overdressed gent, and follow the couple into Dorset Street, where he observed the couple , and heard certain Banter.
We should remember that Hutchinson /Astracan man/ and Kelly were not the only people on the streets that night in the area, life was continuing as normal, and it was only sheer intuition that kept Hutchinson outside Millers court for that period of time.
we must accept that on the friday Hutchinson heard about a murder in the court. but was somwhat reluctant to make his presence known, simply because this murder created such a hue and cry, and he was scared to involve himself.
However one would have imagined that during the next couple of days, he was contemplating revealing his story, which resulted on him approaching a police officer in the area on the sunday, to no avail, on making his imformation known to his fellow boarders in his lodging house, he was advised to contact the police, which he did on the monday evening.
What is wrong Bob with that?,
can you be serious that this guy actually was a killer[ mayby our 'Jack'] and after killing kelly, decided to assist the police and make his presence known.
And to suggest that this guy actually was some kind of victorian stalker, is quite simply acute specualation, something which yours truely has been accused of many times.
I enjoyed you book Bob, it had a hitchcock feel to it, however in my mind Hutchinson is simply a witness to a event, which one should accept,
He was not a killer , nor a stalker, just a very tired and bored young fellow, who happened to notice something unusual that night, and after getting encouragement from his fellow boarders, he finally walked into the police station on the monday evening
I still consider him to have been a much respected and honest informant and so did the whitechapel H' Division.
Regards Richard.
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Dear Richard,
What is basically wrong with that, is that it is incorrect!
Fact (please stick to them) Hutchinson's first contact with the police was on Monday evening, after the inquest.
Supposition: Hutchinson tried to tell the police on Sunday. Where does this information come from? Why Hutchinson! Is it true? Very unlikely. Why? consider this.
Hutchinson on Sunday tries to tell the police what he saw. If he failed to convince the constable, who strangely enough no trace can be found, why didn't he go along to the local nick? Constables in those days worked the beat system. They had a set area to patrol and they were not allowed to leave it unless for reasons of the most dire emergency. (including relieving themselves!) To identify this mythical constable all that was neccessary was to give an approximate time and location where this meeting took place and the officer would have been instantly identified. He wasn't which leaves the inevitable conclusion that his story is fiction.
Is there any record at all anywhere that he told fellow lodgers of his tale before Monday. No. The only source for this is - guess who? - Hutchinson.
So the facts are these. Hutchinson did not contact the police until after the inquest. This is a documented fact.
An attempt was made to inform the police earlier BUT the only source for this is Hutchinson himself. That's like saying Ted Bundy was innocent - because Ted Bundy say's he was!
If you really believe that Hutchinsons motive in coming forward was to assist the police then there's no hope for you. His story, far from assisting the police, exonerated him as a suspect and sent them off on a wild goose chase after astrachan man. How is that assisting them?
I notice you still haven't addressed another crucial point I made about this 'much respected and honest informant' being dismissed as a credible witness by two senior police officers. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Hi Bob,I don"t find it odd that Hutchinson didnt inform the police until he knew he had to-because he had been seen.A murder investigation attracting so much publicity could deter a man such as Hutchinson for several reasons:
-he could fear for his own life having seen someone close-up that night/morning
-he could fear the press/publicity angle could overwhelm him
-he could fear that his behaviour would not be believed by the police and that he would be automatically arrested as so many men were in Whitechapel at the time.
Finally Abberline was known for being a shrewd detective.If he had had the slightest hint that Hutchinson was the man who had murdered and mutilated Mary Kelly he would have detained him.
I believe the man who mudered Mary Kelly and so horribly mutilated her and spread her shredded body around her room in a sort of horrific "decor"
would have been very unlikely to have gone to the police at all.He would surely have laid very low for a while at least.
Besides I dont believe for one moment that Abberline didnt have his digs searched,his contacts quizzed,his story verified.We perhaps dont have all this information today but I bet these things took placeand that was why they didnt suspect Hutchinson beyond preliminary investigations.They didnt find anything to connect him to the murder of Mary Kelly or any of the other murders.I admit its a possibility but I think its unlikely. In fact I think he may be the man who had "a good view of the killer".I reckon they knew who it was too-or had a strong suspicion of who it was-a"toff" answering the same description that Hutchinson gave.A man they couldnt catch red-handed but recognised through the bits and pieces of description-not all of which have come down to us.What was it Abberline is reputed to have said,"many false trails were laid but you would have to go to the top of society rather than the bottom if you wanted to know the identity of the killer".And Abberline wasnt the only detective at the time or later to harbour such suspicions.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2831
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Hi Natalie
The trouble with GH being the man who had a good view of the killer, is that Anderson says he declined to swear to the suspect when he learned he was Jewish. Yet in 1888 GH happily tells Abberline the toff was of Jewish appearance.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Hi Robert,quite right.The thing is we don"t really know how the thinking of Abberline worked.He was able to say this around the actual time of the murders but later seems to have changed his mind[or had he? was he just fobbing off insistent journalists?].I found it incredible that he spoke of Chapman later the way he did.Whatever the case they didnt seem able to bring anyone to justice.And then spent time contradicting one another.It was Kosminski to some Druit to another[definitely NOT Cutbush!]etc.
And finally they seemed to contradict themselves-or Abberline did anyway.
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
So there is no hope for me, for believing that George hutchinson assisted the police, so in your own mind this character was the real deal, he was the killer of Mary jane?. He was an obsessive stalker type individual, that simply waited till his 5th or 6th victim was alone , and butchered her , then was so paronoid that he voluntered his services to the Whitechapel police, and quite possibly the police were so convinced they paid him a quite large fee to boot, to patrol the beat with police officers.
But of course you did not happen to hear the radio broadcast, in the early seventys , which you doubt existed. so in that case i am completly off my rocker, and cannot extinquish plain english words when i hear them.
Bob .
Respect for you in abundance, but you are not the only one who has devoted a large part of his life to this incredible case, and I would hope that my endeavour has given me a more than average insight into the whitechapel murders.
I sincerly hope that Leannes and yours truely book reaches the book shelves, which in hindsight will be hard to achieve because it is shall we say written by novice authors, with no previous.
But you need luck in this game so fair play.
Regards Richard. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 50
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi Richard, you might be right of your opinion that the man Hutchinson saw with Kelly might not have been a customer or indeed the killer...but how is a mutilator supposed to dress?
I think the reason that Hutchinson gave such a precise detail of the man he saw was to make up for a guilty conscience having not stepped forward earlier to the police (also considering that he had himself been seen, he really wasn't that bothered at what had happened to Kelly he may have considered her a bit of a pest, asking for money etc), i would say that because of Hutchinson's guilty conscience he exaggerated to the police, making him look like a concerned citizen at the time...Serial killers hardly ever talk to the police under any circumstances ( also about the story of Hutchinson being seen in the vicinity of Miller's court on the night of Kelly's death is pure fabrication out of a writer's imagination) I guess that Hutchinson was busy with business, so much so that he didn't bother about the death of Kelly too much, or was it that he really hadn't heard of her death soon after anyway? I have met many people who do not want to get involved with the police under any circumstances if they can readily avoid it, perhaps Hutchinson was exactly one of these people (as some would say, we've nothing to worry about it's only happening to prostitutes...Not to mention that cranks of the day wouldn't have given a hoot and also some types may have laughed and joked about the killings through sheer ignorance if not being a prude as well) Also it was Whitechapel London, many people were up all hours of the night and day, trading, working etc, London has always been busy, some shops in 1888 didn't close until 1 am then re-opened at 5 or 6 am, they catered for all visitors and people's needs, so i don't see anything unusual that Hutchinson was up to late, so late it was early morning.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Dear Shelley Criminology Student(why has everybody started giving themselves titles all of a sudden - and can I have one?)
You can't have it both ways. Either GH took such an interest in the stranger with Kelly because he was concerned for her welfare and haroboured a suspicion that the man might be dangerous, or he was a chap who didn't care about prostitutes and didn't want to get involved.
GH's presence at Millers court isn't pure fabrication out of a writers imagination, Sarah Lewis saw a man, and GH said he was there at about the same time.
Richard,
Whether I believe GH to be the killer is irrelevant. What we are discussing here is your assertion that GH's only motive was to assist the police. As I have pointed out the only person assisted by this statement was GH himself.
Once again you dive off into the realms of fantasy, waving goodbye to fact over your left shoulder. Who said the police paid GH 'quite a large fee'?
Once again you bring up your radio broadcast.
'But of course you did not happen to hear the radio broadcast, in the early seventys (sic)' No I didn't and apparently no one else has either. In any case - so what? Somebody may or may not have said something on the radio.
Since you keep banging on about this broadcast, no trace of which you have ever managed to find, I have been doing my own digging. I have found a radio play commisioned for the BBC series ' The Other Victorians' in 1971, entitled 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' Is this what you are on about? Well I have the script and sure enough there is GH saying his bit, but adding
absolutely nothing to what we already know.
If your book has merit it will be published - you seem to forget every author was a novice at one time. However I have been in communication with Leanne about this and she has sent me a copy. I would suggest you talk to her about it.
Now Richard you really are being very naughty. I believe I have asked you to explain why two senior police officers have dismissed GH as a credible witness on at least two previous occassions. You keep forgetting to answer this very valid point. Might we expect an answer some time?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I Would come to the conclusion, that it is relevant that you feel that G H was a possible candidate for 'Jack' for surely that was the whole structure for your book.
The radio Programme to be honest I cannot recall its title, did include Hutchinson , infact the whole programme did, 'The man that saw 'Jack' was more of a title,
Of course george hutchinson was a worthy witness, and according to Abberline ' He believed the man'
The whole basis of the broadcast was to share with the listener that A man called Hutchinson saw what could possibly be a description of the whitechapel murderer, and he was paid a sum of money to tour the district escorted, to try and spot the mysterious gent.
No Great mystery there, i am unlike you Bob, i do take in newspaper references, simply because that is all that is left to analyze this case from.
Regarding the book prospects , thanks for the advice which Leannne shared with me.i am the first to admit their is work to do, but we as enthusiasts, with a fair amount of knowledge to boot, should be able to produce a worthy publication, so fingers cross[ and everthing else]
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
Richard,
I do hope you find the details to the radio programme one day, because anything to do with GH would obviously interest me greatly.
The point I am making though is that to offer something as 'evidence' to back your case that you cannot recall with any clarity, cannot remember any details and can find no trace of does leave you in rather a precarious position!
As for your book I sincerely wish you every success with it, as you say it will be a lot of hard work but I am sure Leanne and yourself are up to the task. Obviously if there is anything I can do to help I would only be too happy to.
I notice that you still haven't answered my point about two senior police officers dismissing GH as a credible witness. May we expect an answer shortly?
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Hi Bob,Richard,Nats,Crim Students et al,
I cannot believe that our George was the honest upright citizen that he is being painted as here.At the end of the day GH had lived and worked in the salubrious environs of Whitechapel for some years and was obviously well versed in the 'rules of engagement' therein.
There are a few ocassions that must surley be marked as if not dubious then questionable......The hanging around waiting sequence is odd to say the least.why was it necessary to do this?......what if our dapper gent had come out as maybe expected after an hour or so..what then?,was GH seeing him as a potential 'mugging' or maybe Mary had a favour or two that GH was due to retrieve...who knows but the lurking is indisputably odd.The delay is coming forward ties in here too,maybe word reached GH that Sarah Lewis had seen him and this was sufficient to put the wind up GH to go to the police on the Monday..probably a very worried man!
Abberline etc all discredited GH as a witness,enough said
Cheers
Suzi (Title as yet undecided..suggestions not welcome!) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Suzi-hope you are enjoying Toronto-great place!
I do see your points.However I think he was in a very difficult position.If he was telling the truth I can understand him NOT wanting to immediately get himself knee deep with the police and possibly a target for the killer.I think many people would have been very wary to come forward in the wake of such a violent and horrific murder.This is assuming he was doing what he was saying he was doing.Don"t forget he said he had been to Romford[?]and returned without enough money to go to his lodging house.Might he not have hoped Mary would have let him stay the night-especially if on previous occasions he HAD given her small amounts of money.As it was he was forced to walk the streets
which is exactly what all the victims bar Mary had done.....so a fairly common experience for the unemployed or the prostitutes/street walkers.
So no I dont find his story difficult to accept.I think the bit about "looking out for Mary" is a bit far-fetched-more likely he was "looking out for himself" I would have thought.
Best to All Nats |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2844
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi
If I remember correctly, GH told the Press that he wanted to bag the reward. Surely if he really wanted the reward, he'd have been down the police station like a shot on Nov 9th.
Robert |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 58
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
George Hutchison comes across to me as being a chap who would have been keen to pick up the reward money, but like you said Bob, put it on his "to-do" list. Then all of a sudden he becomes involved by banging into MJK on the morning she was murdered and he's thinking s**t how can I be credible without the police arresting me as the Ripper? Give him two and a half days and he's got a great wee story about meeting MJK, being really concerned about the rich jewish bloke she's with and hey I'm starting to feel like a hero (better not over do it now). If our George really was on the ball he would have seen Sarah Lewis/Kennedy enter Millar's Court- Sarah saw him and gave a good description. Rich bloke was not JTR. He wanted to warm himself up for a couple of hours and then go. After the clock struck 3.00am George said in his statement he left- but to where??
Busy Beaver  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:39 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Please quote your source for the information that Hutchinson wanted to 'bag' the reward. I have never seen that. The fact that he waited until after Kelly's inquest had concluded to come forward leads me to believe that he wasn't just a concerned, honest, well behaved citizen.
Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline on the 12th of November that his suspicions were aroused by seeing such a well dressed man in Mary's company. Yet a newspaper reported on the 14th of November that he 'had not thought of the previous murders and certainly had no suspicion that the man contemplated violence.' What was he suspicious of in the first place?
He waited outside Miller's Court for some other reason. I believe he was waiting for his 'cut' of Mary's earnings and was an early form of pimp. That would explain why he was so well dressed for that neighbourhood. He was in 'uniform', and needed to stand out.
That would also explain why he was described to the press by someone as a good witness to have at that stage of the investigation. I suspect that Abberline knew of his 'profession', and thought that he could be useful as an informant.
LEANNE
"Mommy, Mommy! Daddy's on fire!"
"Shut up and get the marshmallows!"
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2846
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:21 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Can't find it at the moment, but I'll keep looking!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
Hi,
On the monday Hutchinson approached the police with his now famous statement, included in the statement was the declaration that kelly said'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' surely as this was some eighty hours after the body was discovered and a full inventory would have been made of her room, if the hankerchief was not amongst kellys clothing or present in that room, the police would have doubted hutchinsons story immediately, for surely such a well dressed customer would not have insisted that kelly returned his hanky that proberly would have been soiled by Kelly.
But according to two peices of fact.
a] he officially accompanied by a police officer toured the streets of whitechapel/ aldgate to search for this man.
b] he was alleged to have received the sum of five guineas for his efforts[ four weeks wages for a manual worker of that period.]
Are we suggesting that the police when not being able to trace the said item , would have wasted police funds on a person whose statement did not appear valid.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2852
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Richard
It's true that if the police found a man's red handkerchief in Kelly's room, this would have been seen as a point in favour of GH's story.
I'm not so sure of the reverse, though - that if no hanky was found, they'd have dismissed GH's story, with the follow-up idea that since they did appear to accept Gh's story, then a hanky must have been found. If the police decided to accept Gh's story, the absence of the hanky could be explained as the killer (i.e. the toff) making sure he left no clue at the scene of the crime.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hi Robert,my own theory is that the police already had a description of a man they suspected and they had kept some of the description back from the press.My guess then is that Hutchinson"s description matched theirs.It may have been to do with the handkerchief or maybe with the physical description or even the astrakan coat or the fact that he was well dressed etc.Whatever it was rang a bell and they decided to give chase.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2854
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
That's the weird thing. We have Press reports such as that in the "Times" for Nov 13th, to the effect that GH's description tallies with the descriptions given by others who saw Kelly with a man on the night of her murder. But what descriptions? GH's man doesn't sound like the blotchy-faced man.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
