Archive through 03 January 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 03 January 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Hutchinson, George (British): Archive through 03 January 2001

Author: rdriessen Monday, 20 September 1999 - 12:07 pm
Hi, I was wondering wether anybody has ever seen or come across, seen a drawing or photograph, of the watch chain as described by Hutchinson? The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, page 335. A massive gold chain, a big seal with a red stone? I guess it must be an antiquity by now. Excuse my bad spelling :). If we ever were to get a really good tangible clue, this item must be it. Anyone?
Author: Andrew Sunday, 10 October 1999 - 09:31 am
Hi everyone, I'm new to the casebook so I hope I am not covering old ground but I found something which may be of interest to those who suspect Hutchinson. In Brent Turvey's recently published book 'Criminal Profiling' there is a special section on the Whitechapel Murders. In it Turvey reviews the case and lists certain characeristics he expects to find in the killer. He says: "...this offender might try to interject himself into the investigation in order to manipulate and hamper investigative efforts. He has likely already done so after previous attacks by coming forth as a witness....(all witnesses) should be screened as potential suspects, with special attention paid to accounts that appear to demonstrate uncanny insight into the crime, that appear to be hyperbole, or that show contempt for the victim."
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 04:54 am
Dear jackisback This discussion follows on from the Hutchinson- Witness board. I noticed your recent posting and it drew my attention to previous postings which apparently I have overlooked. Since these were comments about my book I should have answered them but seem to have failed to do so. I an only suppose that when they were posted my computer had a nervous breakdown. I have moved the subject to Suspects as believe this to be more relevant. First of all let me thank Yazoo and Viper for buying my book! Now let me see if I can't clarify the points they raise. Yazoo asks how many conjectures are we allowed to make? All investigation is supposition and conjecture until the facts are laid before a court of law and they are proved to be fact - so I guess the answer to your question is unlimited - as long as they have a sound basis, I believe mine do have - you believe they don't, fair enough. He next questions the ability of Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson to see what they are supposed to have seen. He says: ' Now Hinton casts doubts on even the possibility that Hutchinson could see well enough....to provide HIS detail. but he wants us to believe that Lewis could!!!.....That is not logically consistent, therefore one or both statements or conclusions in Hintons argument are wrong......... The method is what matters and it collapses if you just look at it.....' To me this is totally illogical reasoning as Yazoo is not comparing like with like. I am saying that it was impossible for Hutchinson to provide details such as the colour of the mans eyelashes and the colour of his boot buttons in a single glance as the man walked past him lasting perhaps half a second. Sarah Lewis on the other hand gave a much different account. Her testimony reads' When I went into the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house. He was not tall - but stout- has on a black wide awake hat. I did not notice his clothes' The man she saw was standing in the illuminated entrance to the lodging house, standing still, she had a good chance to observe him, and yet notice the scarcity of detail. So yes I do maintain that although it was not possible to produce a truthfull description a la Hutchinson, Lewis's description is perfectly possible. If Lewis's description had contained such details as Hutchinsons then I would have seriously doubted that as well. I fail to see why my conclusions in this matter are 'logically inconsistent' He then goes on to my theory about Abberline filing a false report. He calls this a police cover up. I claim nothing of the sort. I believe Abberline took it upon himself to file a false report - nothing to do with the police as a whole. I believe he did this as a stratagem to keep his suspicions getting into the papers and backed it with a verbal report. And yes those 'pesky reporters' did get in the way, don't forget it was the papers that leaked the 'Leather Apron' story which delayed the arrest and subsequent clearing of Pizer. That alone wasted hundreds if not thousands of police man hours. It was also the press that leaked the Schwartz testimony again causing problems for the investigation. (mainly I should add down to the bad relations that existed between the Met and the press) Next we come on to what I call the Missing Witness. I have read and re read Yazoos contribution several times and still can't see what he's trying to say - but since he can't understand what I am trying to say that makes us quits. This is going to be of some length so I will make a separate posting on this. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 05:21 am
PART II THE MISSING WITNESS Before I start my explanation I think it would be just as well to establish what we mean by certain terms. A witness, in this instance, I am taking to mean someone who saw the victim with an unidentified male immediately before (or as immediate as we can guess) the victims demise. These unidentified males I am going to label 'suspects'. Using this definition we have four witnesses. Mrs Darrell aka Long - Chapman Schwartz - Stride Lawende and Co. - Eddowes Hutchinson - Kelly So how do they stack up as witnesses able to give valuable testimony. Darrell only saw the man from the back and gave a practically useless description - delete from witness list. Schwartz gave a comprehensive description - possibly valuable as a witness. Keep on list. Lawende and Co. He saw the man but wasn't too sure, didn't think he could identify him - but keep him anyway. Hutchinson This is the Rolls Royce of witnesses. He gave a more complete description than the suspects own doctor. This is the witness of the century, nay of the millenium, definitely keep him. However when two senior police officials discuss witnesses later on, what do we find? Anderson states: "I will only add that the ONLY PERSON who ever had a good view of the murderer..." He then goes on to state that the witness was a JEW, so it is either Lawende or Schwartz. McNaghten says : 'No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City PC...) Now this has in the past caused some confusion as no PC, City or Met was ever a witness. However since he mentions the City it is a valid asumption he is referring to Lawende who was a witness to the City crime. (Stewart Evans recently suggested that this should read ...City Police witness... which is a perfectly valid assumption) So it seems therefore that McNaghten is either saying no-one saw the killer, or possibly Lawende did. Notice anything missing here? Why has Eagle Eye Hutchinson been removed from the list? Why has this witness of the year been left out? How is it possible to overlook the best witness any investigation has ever had? My theory is that he was left out because Abberline made it clear that in spite of what his written report said, Hutchinson should be treated with extreme caution. Now if you don't agree with that, that's fine but can anyone else give me a logical reason why Hutchinson has been left off the list? I should warn you that the usual response is 'Well there could be thousands of reasons', the good news is I'll accept just one! Before I finish can I just say that I AM NOT SAYING THAT ABBERLINE KNEW HUTCHINSON TO BE THE KILLER. This is a position I have always taken and probably will always take. What I am saying is that Abberlines suspicions were aroused. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: ChrisGeorge Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 10:31 am
Hello Bob: Couldn't the reason why George Hutchinson's statement was not given the weight you think it could be the very same reason why you and Alan and Wolf have been going back and forth on MJK's time of death? That is, because of the doubt about the possibility that rigor mortis can establish with exactness the time of her death, the time attributed to Hutchinson's witness sighting makes it less valuable as a description? Surely we can all agree that the time of death of Kate Eddowes is more exactly ascertainable so that the witness or witness sitings in her murder are the ones that are more valuable? In other words, I submit that although Hutchinson's statement sounds fishy in its detail, and in this I agree with you, MJK could have been out looking for customers after the departure of Mr. Astrakhan collar and red stone fob, or else the Ripper entered her room and attacked her after that individual left and also after the departure of George Hutchinson from his station at the entrance to Miller's Court. Chris George
Author: JackisBack Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 08:08 pm
Well, thank you gentlemen, I have felt since I first read the very detailed descriptions (not sure yet if they were give in Police Reports or the MJK Inquest) and information from a certain George Hutchenson, that he would have to be con- sidered the best EYE witness as to the ID of MJK's companion and it struck me, as Mr. Hinton has so precisely presented it, Why is he lost overlooked, lost in the continual re shuffling of supposed facts, or just ignored as Steven Evans said to me in the chatroom the other night, Hutchenson was "only a witness". But if any of what he said was true, then the most important and possibly the only ID witness of merit..It is strange that he was, and is, not considered more carefully. Not as a suspect, because I haven't read Mr. Hinton's book yet, and maybe will, but just as the most important Witness, to start. Glad to see Chris enter this discussion and I thank you Bob for your analysis. Maybe someone else can add to this and keep the discussion alive. JiB PS, There is a Diana (I blieve that is her name)out there somewhere who had commented on GH, several months ago. Hopefully she will see this and join in... Anyone got a better witness?
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 01 November 1999 - 12:03 am
Dear Chris George, Yes you make an excellent point, however at the time I do not believe there was this controversy over the time of MJK's death. Apparently the authorities were quite satisfied that she died sometime early morning and worked accordingly. In any case this doesn't explain why Hutchinson was completely dismissed by both Anderson and McNaghten as a witness. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Bob_C Monday, 01 November 1999 - 01:55 am
Hi all, My 2 cents about CGH. He did indeed give an (almost to good to be true) exact description of the man he claims to have seen. While his claims to have been there, and have talked to Kelly, may well be admisable, there seems to be at least good embroidery in his description of Mr. Astrakhan Collar. A claim, sometimes to have given Kelly money rings hollow. Why should he do that? Could it not be completely unthinkable that it were the other way around? Male persons hanging around outside prostitute dwellings where 'guests' are present is a paticular occupation, the grounds for which being not completely unknown. I won't claim that CGH undoubtable was a pimp, but he could have been hanging around in the hope of poncing off Kelly if she appeared. That his contact to Kelly that evening had partly to do with money is a fact that he lets us know. Why does he mention it? Only partly can I see an argument put forward by some JTR scholars, that CGH was kept quite because it was thought that he had given a very hot tip indeed and was an extremely valuable witness. In this case it were logical to keep his evidence under cover, so as not to alarm Jack. Best regards, Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 01 November 1999 - 07:09 am
Dear Bob c Hutchinsons statement was never kept under cover, he approaching the papers and they publishing it in full, I believe the following day after he had gone to the police. Bob Hinton
Author: Rotter Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 02:38 am
Is the statement we usually see attributed to Hutchinson the statement he gave the police or the newspaper version? What I am really asking is do we have any indication that he embellished the description for the press or is that his consistent description of the suspect.
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 04:45 am
Hi Bob, Sorry, I explained myself there badly. I had meant that the apparent lack of attention paid to CGH by the authorities could have been due to a cover-up to hide the importance of his statements. Having already been trumpeted abroad by the newspapers, CGH's statements were public knowledge. All the police could do was to so carry on as if his testimoney be not important, so as not to alarm Jack more. (I do not myself necessarily subscribe to this view, as said.) Hi Rotter, Hutchinson does, according to P. Sugden, embellish a bit to the newspapers, but in main structures of his report he seems to remain consistant. That at least speaks for his having seen something, realy pertinent or not. Best regards, Bob
Author: JackisBack Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 01:57 pm
Bob, thanks for all the new imput in this area and I don't know were several months of past posting suddenly appeared from, but they are welcome. I unfortunately misprinted Stewart or (Stuart) Evans or (Evens) name in a previoius posting and wanted to apologise to him. Certainly George Hutchenson is and should be considered the most important witness in the JtR (White Chapel) series of Murders. His input should be examined for its truthfulness and "plausibility"...I would like to know the name of your book to follow up on any and all information you have included there. One question of importance to me is, 1. What happened to GH after his description was published, did he ever elaborate in later life, or work with an author on a book or article. Just what happened to the most important witness in the most celebrated crime of the last Century and perhaps the Millenium. We are all still here wondering and speculating about what only one witness mihgt have been able to know, the ID of the WC Murderer.. Seems strange that there wasn't any follow-up and further investigation of his "Testimony" and/or statements to the Press. I guess I will just have to read your book and hopegfully more people will continue to examine this part of the Mystery... PS, I found Diana, she contributes to other subjects, Diana Cooper, I believe..
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 12:07 am
Dear Jack My book is called 'From Hell. the Jack the Ripper Mystery' I believe full details are carried on the Ripper literature section and Amazon.UK have it listed. yours Bob Hinton
Author: RLeen Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 03:51 am
Hello Everybody, I'm writing this from a memory, which is starting to becoming slightly confused, so bear with me if my facts are slightly wrong. So, why is Hutchinson such a bad witness? Well I think that there are two factors which point against his testimony. Number 1; as the suspect walked past the street light - resplendent in overcoat, waistcoat, and crucially a hat - Hutchinson leaned down and looked up into his features. Surely the man's face would have been completely silhouetted by the corona from the lamp and the brim of the hat. Or as Mr. Scott used to say, "ye cannae change the laws of physics." Apparently Hutchinson did. Number 2; we are led to believe that MJK was extremely down on her luck etc. But look at the testimony of her neighbour, is it Mary Ann Cox? Reading between the lines shows that she "entertained" at least three clients whilst Hutchinson kept vigil outside MJK's hovel. Would it not be more credible that Hutchinson would have investigated why "carrot whiskers" was taking so long in the house especially as fear of JTR had reached a crescendo. On the whole I feel that I have not explained my position very well so, in summary, Hutchinson is either a blind or a viable suspect for the murder of MJK. Thanking you for your consideration Rabbi Leen
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 10:26 am
Dear Rabbi, Your point about the hat casting a shadow over a face lit from above is totally valid. I made it some time ago and to date no-one has managed to come up with an explanation as to how you can discern the colour of a mans eyelashes when his face is in shadow! This to me is symptomatic of all Hutchinsons statement. On the face of it very plausible, but when you start to examine it it falls apart. Why for instance would a man so well dressed as the stranger wander around Whitechapel at 2 in the morning on a cold (practically freezing) wet night with his overcoat, jacket completely open to the elements, as it had to be if GH could see his watchchain and seal! Read the description again, close your eyes and try and recall if you've ever seen anything like it in all your life. I bet you have - the last time you looked into Burton's ( a British tailor) window. What Hutchinson described in such detail is a tailors dummy! all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 08:37 am
Hi all, ...and as I myself for some long time already investigated, try to establish the colour of something small like a jewel or a spat button in low-light enviroments. I've tried with lego bricks in different colours and in different lighting. It's as good as impossible in the manner CGH describes. A tailor's dummy indeed! CGH was, I am also certain, embellishing when not downright lying about the man. Even if we took into account that the steet lighting being what it was, eyes could get more accustomed to the dark as nowadays, such eyesight would have been excessively exceptional. I am still not able to completely exonerate CGH from being a pimp. Best regards, Bob
Author: Sarah Rachel Jacobs Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 09:36 am
Bob-- Good point! It's a scientifically-proven one, too. The retina of the eye, which is what is sensitive to light, shadow, and color, picks them up by means of rods (whic pick up light and shadow) and cones (which pick up color). The rods are much more sensitive than the cones. THe cones need relatively intense light, from all the colors in the spectrum, to reflect off of the colored object and back into the eye in order to perform their work. "Light from all colors of the spectrum" is intense white light, usually from the sun or from a lightbulb, or else from a roaring flame, a candle put very close to the object, or many candles shining upon the object. The few streetlamps of 1888s East End (which, a poster on the Lighting in London message board informs us, were nothing more than open gas-flames) would not, especially in darkness or near-darkness, be enough for color vision. Compare the old saying: "In the dark, all cats are gray." Sarah
Author: Bob_C Friday, 05 November 1999 - 09:44 am
Hi Sahra, Quite right about seeing in the dark, that was the reason then for my tests with lego bricks. There was probably a bit more light from pubs, stalls etc. as just from few and far-between gas lamps but not to compare with our modern-day town street lighting, especially in main thouroughfares. There is where I tried my experiment, assuming that if I couldn't determine colours with that background intensity, CGH had to have been lying. I could discerne colours when the lego bricks were held directly in the light and peered at, but held in the shaded position as CGH claimed on a watch chain, it was not possible. Or, as I said at the time, he ate a hell of a lot more carrots then I do. Best regards, Bob
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 31 March 2000 - 05:27 am
We can doubt Hutchinson's description of the male he say's met Kelly,can his statement be doubted by other counts?.Perhaps so. Why 2a.m.in the morning to be so concerned,and why ask for only sixpence from a person who had previously given shillings.Why not solicit him. Why not give him a reason for her desperation.She had been with Barnet and other friends the previous evening why not tell them what her worry was.What was so pressing that she couldn't wait till morning to solicit friends. She had eaten a meal,so it couldn't have been hunger.Drink she had inbibed freely the night before.She was behind with the rent sure,but there is no indication she had been given an ultimatum to leave.I am sure she would have told Barnet or friends if this had been the case. If she was worried about rent why not use the money that had been spent on drink the previous evening. She had acted normal when returning home at midnight.She had sang as she normally did when under the influence.Everything seems to have been normal untill 2 in the morning.Why the sudden change. Still it is very conveniant for Hutchinson's presence at the court,to come up with such a tale. H.M.
Author: Glenn Baron Saturday, 22 April 2000 - 04:39 pm
Bob, I've just ordered your book (4-6 weeks from Amazon, darn) but in the meantime wonder whether anyone has asked why Hutchinson was taking the Commercial St/Thrawl St route towards Flower+Dean St? Coming along Whitechapel High St from the east, the natural and quickest route would be to turn right up Osborn St/Brick Lane. Hutchinson, if he's to be believed, had just hiked a considerable distance from Romford in cold and rain, was evidently headed for Flower+Dean St (where he presumably lived?), and would surely have wanted to get there as quickly as possible. Why take a longer route? I look forward to getting the book. The more I read about JtR, the more Hutchinson looks worthy of serious suspicion. Cheers Glenn
Author: John Baker Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 06:15 am
Hello folks; I'm new to this message board. I've long had my suspicions about Mr Hutchinson, since the man he describes sounds like a villain from a Victorian melodrama rather than a real person. Pardon my ignorance, but has 'the' Hutchinson been identified? If so, did he have a criminal record, and when did he die? If this is all common knowledge, my apologies. John
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 11:52 am
John-- If you look above in the Archives you'll see a discussion of Bob Hinton's efforts to trace Hutchinson. There is also more information on the "Witness" Board under "Specific Witnesses: George Hutchinson". As far as I know, George faded into oblivion after his brief appearance in Autumn of 1888. Welcome to the boards, RJP
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 09:19 am
Dear John Baker, I have managed to do quite a bit of research on GH since finishing my book, and as soon as I have got a sizeable chunk I'll put it on the boards. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: John Baker Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 12:42 pm
Dear RJP and Bob Cheers for the info: I look forward to hearing more on our George. His sudden disappearance seems a bit odd. Could he have died/been banged up/emigrated/etc?I have a feeling I've seen a photo of an old gent who may have been an aged Hutchinson (dated 1920s or so?) in some Ripper book or other, but I remember thinking that there must have been a fair few George Hutchinsons about at the time. Any idea which book it was? Yours John Baker
Author: Andrew Geldart Monday, 15 May 2000 - 03:08 pm
Hi everyone, in James Tully's book 'The secret of prisoner `1167' the author gives a description of Hutchinson mentioning that he was of a military appearance.However he gives no source. I presume this comes from the local press but I can't find the article anywhere. Does anyone know the source of this information and whether Hutchinson was in fact a soldier/reservist/military pensioner? I've read Bob Hinton's book, but as far as I can recall Bob makes no mention of a military background. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Author: Glenn Baron Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 08:24 am
Why "CGH" as an abbreviation for George Hutchinson in some of the postings above? Probably blindingly obvious, but I can't quite see the reason right now :> Regards Glenn
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 08:33 am
It's short for "Curious George Hutchinson", I seem to recall - presumably due to his curiosity regarding Mary's client. It's bloody annoying, though, as it also happens to coincide with my initials - I keep reading it and thinking "what have I done now?" :-0 All the Best Guy
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 03:04 am
Bob--This question is a least a year overdue, but I don't believe you ever gave the answer to it... What DID Hutchinson's mother die of? (I've been crawling through the archives) Thanks, RJP. PS. Is Hutchinson's middle name known? I'm interested in Viper's suggestion that there is the slight possibility that Hutchinson emigrated to Canada or Australia.
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 06:57 am
Dear Mr Palmer Hannah Hutchinson died of cancer of the womb, 3rd Jan 1876 when George was 16. She was 39 years of age at the time. Her death certificate was signed by W B Laing Fergusson MRCS Eng. At the time of her death she was living at 10 Petonville Road, Clerkenwell. George Hutchinson didn't have a middle name, his birth certificate showing it to be solely 'George'. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 05:50 pm
To Bob Hinton: Thank you very much for the information; it rings a faint bell, somehow. I'm looking forward to reading your book and hope you forge ahead with your plans to publish more information on Hutchinson. Your comments are always of great interest. RJP
Author: D L Lewis Monday, 04 September 2000 - 01:18 am
Hi all, have enjoyed all of this discussion on Hutchison. Ther is a picture of a man claiming to be the George Hutchison in Melvyn Fairclough's Sickert and the Ripper crimes, as well as Tully's book. I think that we are being a tad too suspicious about CGH. I believe we are not getting the whole story, but not because he murdered MJK - but because I think he was a real or potential client of MJK, and probably countless others. He had given Mary money - but in return for services? Probably. Soliciting was illegal, and going with a prostitute was a serious offence. Would CGH claim he was a client, with the very real (to him) risk of arrest? This may also explain the exceptionally detailed description. Hutchison embellished his description to throw suspicion away from his own activities - not those of murder, but those of pimping? or at least using the services fo a prostitute. This doesn't mean to say that Abberline would have arrested him. Despite some claims to the contrary, prostitution was not an accepted way fo life or practice in Victorian London. It was tolerated by the working classes, as it was often the only way to make money, but all knew that prostitution was abhorrent to the respectable middle class (though certain middle class clients certainly existed.) To Hutchison, a respectable policeman would not have accepted him as a witness, knowing he had used the services of a prostitute. Abberline himself may not have cared, and may have suspected CGH of this. As one of the earlier posts said, and as the JTR A-Z says, Hutchinson's statements are remarkably consistent, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Just my thoughts.
Author: D L Lewis Monday, 04 September 2000 - 01:20 am
Hi all, have enjoyed all of this discussion on Hutchison. Ther is a picture of a man claiming to be the George Hutchison in Melvyn Fairclough's Sickert and the Ripper crimes, as well as Tully's book. I think that we are being a tad too suspicious about CGH. I believe we are not getting the whole story, but not because he murdered MJK - but because I think he was a real or potential client of MJK, and probably countless others. He had given Mary money - but in return for services? Probably. Soliciting was illegal, and going with a prostitute was a serious offence. Would CGH claim he was a client, with the very real (to him) risk of arrest? This may also explain the exceptionally detailed description. Hutchison embellished his description to throw suspicion away from his own activities - not those of murder, but those of pimping? or at least using the services fo a prostitute. This doesn't mean to say that Abberline would have arrested him. Despite some claims to the contrary, prostitution was not an accepted way fo life or practice in Victorian London. It was tolerated by the working classes, as it was often the only way to make money, but all knew that prostitution was abhorrent to the respectable middle class (though certain middle class clients certainly existed.) To Hutchison, a respectable policeman would not have accepted him as a witness, knowing he had used the services of a prostitute. Abberline himself may not have cared, and may have even suspected CGH of this, but didn't do anything about it. His mind was on bigger fry. As one of the earlier posts said, and as the JTR A-Z says, Hutchinson's statements are remarkably consistent, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Just my thoughts.
Author: Carl Dodd Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 12:10 am
Many years ago I worked the fringes of a rape case. A woman reported to another officer that she had been attacked and raped after leaving a tavern. Medical tests were done on her at a nearby hospital. The results of the tests were NOT immediately available because the test material had to go to a specific laboratory for analysis. It took over a week for the results to come back to the department. The attack had occurred in the lit parking lot of a trucking company by "a really big man." All the time, before the test results came back, we worked the area of the rape to locate the suspect. Many manhours were put into the investigation. The victim gave a very detailed description of her attacker. The victim even retained an attorney and started a lawsuit against the trucking company on whose property she said that the attack happened. About ten days after the start of the rape case the chief told me to disregard looking for the rape suspect any more. I didn't understand why I should just drop a rape case investigation so I asked him about it. He took me into his office and explained that the woman had lied about the rape. Physical evidence had proven that she had not been raped. When confronted with the test results she admitted the lie. She and her husband had been drinking in the nearby tavern. She had gotten mad at him and stormed out of the tavern. To get back at him she had claimed to have been attacked and raped. I asked if she was going to be charged with filing a false report. The chief said, "No. She has enough problems with her marriage as it is. Nothing that we could do would help us or effectively punish her." As time passed I learned that this scenario was not uncommon among police agencies. Somebody reports something and then later recants their information. This applies to suspects, victims and witnesses. I would guess that George Hutchinson did something like this and was quietly eliminated as a credible witness. This would explain why he faded out of the JTR picture.
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:24 am
Hi, Carl: Thanks for telling us about the alleged rape case in which you were involved during your time as a police officer. Certainly, as documented in Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion there were a large number of false leads or possible "false dawns" (as it were) in the Ripper case, and Hutchinson's testimony could be one of them. It is mysterious, as you indicate, that Abberline trumpeted the importance of Hutchinson's statement then you hear nothing more about Hutchinson and the alleged suspect that he described. This might indicate that the statement could be all or part fabrication, as a number of us assume. You will know yourself as a former serving police officer that certain persons push themselves into an investigation, and you singled out Roslyn D'Onston as one such person in one of your recent posts. Quite possibly George Hutchinson was another person of this order who wanted his time in the limelight, and the reason that his identification of an alleged suspect came to nothing was that the police realized it was a fabrication. Best regards Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:28 am
Hi, all: Where is Bob Hinton when we need him? We don't seem to have of late had the pleasure of reading his posts on George Hutchinson and other interesting aspects of the case. Bob, come back, we need you! Chris George
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 02:06 pm
Dear Everyone, Like the proverbial bad penny I always turn up! Its very gratifying to see so much interest being taken in George Hutchinson, both as a suspect and as an interesting character in the drama. The reason for making his statement was one of the triggers that set me thinking about him. I think that more and more people are now beginning to realise that his statement is a fabrication, the amount of detail contained in it being just one point that indicates this. The important thing, to my way of thinking, is not the statement, but the timing of it. I believe that is the crux of the whole matter. We should all recall exactly when this was, three clear days after the murder of MJK AND after the inquest. If he wanted his fifteen minutes of fame he would have rushed straight to the police or the press - don't forget a lot of people did make statements on that fatefull Friday. If he wanted to have a chance at the reward - again the same thing. In fact as you go through all the possible reasons for the delay in coming forward, I believe you are left with one inescapable fact - he came forward at that time because he was forced to. Something happened at the inquest of MJK that made it imperative that he come forward. What was it? I believe it was the statement of Sarah Lewis. She stated that she had actually seen a man across the street "looking up the court as if waiting for somone...." Now if that man was Hutchinson he has two options. One- say nothing. Problem - if he is later seen and recognised by Lewis how on earth does he explain not coming forward? Two - explain your presence with some believable tale, which is exactly what he does do. He admits the man was likely to have been him. If Hutchinson was completely innocent why didn't he come forward before? The fact is, and it is a fact, he only comes forward after a witness states that she had seen someone. Don't forget out of all the suspects, all the Druitts, Tumblety's, Kosminskis, Barnetts et al, Hutchinson is the only one who has been placed on the scene at the (approx) time of a murder, and he has been placed there by confession and an independant witness. I have dug up a lot more interesting information about Hutchinson since my book came out and as soon as I get time I'll post it on the boards. Dear Chris George - thank you for your above posting - the last guy who missed me hadn't set his sights properly! all the very best to everyone and a very Happy New Year to all Bob
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 02:46 pm
Hooray ! Welcome back Bob , its always a pleasure to see you on the Boards ! Please post that information as soon as possible. Simon
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 05:24 pm
Hi, Bob: Great to see you. We look forward to exchanging ideas with you again and hearing about the new information you have on the enigmatic Mr. Hutchinson. I suppose my feeling about Hutch is that, yes, there is something very wrong with his witness sighting. However, that does not necessarily make him Jack the Ripper. In fact, by making a noticeably false statement he would be focusing attention on himself which you would think he would NOT want to do if he was the killer. Best regards Chris George
Author: Diana Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 06:48 pm
He might have hung around Miller's Court for an unknown reason. Then when he found out there had been a murder he thought it best to "lie low" lest he be accused.
Author: Jim DiPalma Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 06:51 pm
Hi Bob, Welcome back to the boards! Like Chris George, I am also looking forward to seeing your new material on Hutchinson. Regards, Jim