|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The British George Hutchinson
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
The British George Hutchinson
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:54 pm |        | Hello All.
Timsta.
I've had a look at the map and it certainly looks interesting. When I have more time, I'll post some relevant information relating to environmental psychology.
Monty.
Excellent post, and not in the least bit adversarial. Thanks for the reassurance though.
In terms of the Ripper's general functionality, it is extremely unlikely that he could have held down a long-term intimate relationship. His employment record would have been erratic too. For some time prior to the murders, he would have become increasingly isolated as the obsession with his paraphilic fantasies intensified. By the time of the Nichols murder, every aspect of his life would have been dominated by the fantasy. This isn't guesswork, I hasten to add. It is the picture that has emerged through decades of empirical research into such men.
Whilst we know that Barnett, Bowyer and McCarthy enjoyed relative stability in their lives with regard to employment and interpersonal relationships, virtually nothing is known about Hutchinson. And, being realistic, it is unlikely that we will ever establish anything more than a vague personal history. After all, we cannot even be sure that George Hutchinson was his real name.
It is, however, almost certain that Hutchinson was at the Kelly crime scene at a time critical to her murder. To qualify this statement, Hutchinson himself revealed to reporters that he had stood directly outside Kelly's room at 3:00am. From witness statements, we are aware that a cry of "Oh, murder!" was heard in the immediate vicinity at between 3:30 and 4:00am. Unfortunately, since this information is based upon guestimations, it is impossible to be more specific. And given the notorious perceptual fallibility of witnesses, it would probably be safer to assume that the cry was emitted at some point between 3:00 and 4:30am.
Personally, I accord no credence to Carrie Maxwell's claim that Mary Jane was alive (if not well) subsequent to 8:00am. Quite simply, I believe that Mrs Maxwell confused Mary Jane with someone else, especially since her description of Kelly (short, dark and stout) was utterly at variance with those provided by others who were better placed to know. The crime scene photograph, too, seemingly explodes any notion of a stout Mary Kelly. On the balance of probability, therefore, I'm convinced that the cry of "Oh, murder!" indeed emanated from Kelly and that her time of death was 3:45am, plus or minus forty-five minutes. On this basis, Hutchinson must be regarded, at best, as a witness of crucial importance. At worst, he is a prime suspect in the Ripper murders.
As I believe I outlined in a recent response to Caz, I see nothing in Hutchinson's behaviour that lends itself to the proposition that he was either an attention seeker, a profiteer, or both. The fact that he laid low in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, at a juncture when the gentlemen of the press were paying handsomely for information, suggests a reluctance on Hutchinson's part to become involved. The likelihood that he came forward purely as a consequence of Sarah Lewis's revelations is, to my mind, overwhelming. Matthew Packer, on the other hand, was clearly an opportunist - a man who, as a consequence of serendipity, not only stumbled upon a means of making money from sensation-seeking journalists, he exploited the situation to the full by repeatedly selling what turned out to be irrelevant Ripper-related intelligence. A modern parallel of Packer is the pub landlord who sold pieces of the carpet on which Peter Sutcliffe had once stood. Sadly, greed and opportunism appear to know no bounds.
Mr Radka.
You really have surpassed yourself this time. Ignorance, distortion and outright fabrication - and all in the same post.
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 02:04 am | | Hi Dan.
As usual, your previous post contains a number of excellent points. In context of the possible prior contact between Kelly and her killer, I remain fairly convinced that a key was used on Kelly's door after the murder. Had the room been secured with a bolt or spring lock, there would have been no need for McCarthy to break open the door. Remember too that, at this point, the window frame had already been removed from its aperture, thereby increasing the implausibility that no-one spotted what was a simple and non-destructive mode of entry.
And yet if, as you posited, the killer learned how to get into the room after having observed Kelly reaching through the broken window pane, how did he come into possession of a key that had already been lost?
On this basis, I would suggest that there must have been prior contact.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 04:09 am | | I see where you are coming from, Garry, but I remain unconvinced on the issue of the key. Sure it seems unlikely to us now that the officers wouldn't have spotted the way to trip a bolt or spring, but with the mutilated body there, and all the people crowding around, and the frustration of waiting for the tracking dogs to show only to discover later that there weren't any, I can see them overlooking it and just crashing in. I've seen too many instances where the people involved should have known better but missed something that seemed obvious upon later reflection because of stress and distractions.
On the other hand, if Jack a had a key I don't think much contact would have been necessary.
I was just out drinking tonight, and someone stole a leather jacket away from the table a crowd of about 8 of us were at. I can't imagine how they got it without us seeing as the designated driver and myself (the least drunk of the drinkers) were the two closest to it. (Luckily it was discovered in the men's bathroom with only the cash and some gum (?!) missing, and all the cards, phone, etc. still there. Almost spoiled the birthday party until it turned up.)
Considering MJK's reputation for drinking I imagine it'd be even easier to lift something off of her. So I guess that's contact of a sort, but not necessarily the kind where MJK would have known the person. If there was a key, I think Jack would have had to have watched her enough to get the key and know where she lived, and then watched on the night of the killing to know she was alone. That's the extent of all the personal knowledge of MJK that would be necessary, in my opinion.
Now it's also certainly possible that Jack did know Mary Kelly (or, more to the point, that she knew him), but I don't think it's required.
Dan |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 04:23 am | | Dan,
There is an interesting trial taking place in South Australia at the present time.
Interesting because it involves serial killing.The number of victims I believe is twelve,the number of murderers three,and the principal suspect knew all the victims.
For those who theorise on two persons being involved in the ripper murders,a killer and helper,a similar series of murders in South Australia occured some years ago.
In this instance,the alledged killer,unsuspected at the time,died in a road accident.His accomplice,who would only admit to helping pick up,and then help in disposing of the bodies afterwards,denied any part in the actual killings.
In the Fred West series of killings,there appears evidence of more than one killer,and prior knowledge of some of the victims.
Interestingly I came originally from Gloucester,and rumour there spoke of more undiscovered bodies.One witness,a boyhood aquaintance,whose story appeared on the front page of a national paper,admitted a close association with the West,s
Meeting him there in town one day while hollidaying in England,after the furore had died down,I remarked on the bad company he had been keeping.His parting remark,"Harry,they don't know the half of it and never will".
I think that about sums up the Ripper case.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 05:07 am | | Garry, theres really only one person who covers that criteria,-- and that is, Barnett!!with as much criteria as you like piled up besides. But, as they say, no proof,-- and as I say, you'll never get it .
Rick |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hi Dan.
The one observation I would make regarding the Kelly crime scene is that Dr Phillips was one of those who scrutinized the room through the window aperture. Given his experience in the postmortem room, I think it unlikely that Mary Jane's corpse would have affected him as profoundly as may have been the case with the other onlookers. And since he was obviously an intelligent, observant man, the notion of him overlooking a bolt or spring lock on a door not three feet away seems more than a little implausible. Anyway, it was just a thought.
Hi Harry.
Your observation on the Wests is certainly intriguing, supporting as it does the suspicion among many that the lengthy intervals between a number of the killings are uncharacteristic of the series as a whole. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, a few years down the line, Rose was to emulate Hindley and endeavour to curry favour by revealing details about more offences.
Your reference to the Australian case is also intriguing. The one revealing aspect of serial killer pairings is that their crimes tend to incorporate rape and other 'tangible' sexual activities. Perhaps this explains why many people have difficulty in accepting the Whitechapel Murders as sexually orientated crimes.
Hi Rick.
You are quite correct, of course, in linking Barnett to the missing key and a pre-existing relationship with Mary Kelly. Yet despite my having read Bruce Paley's book several times, I found nothing to indicate that Barnett could have been the Whitechapel Murderer. Indeed, during the years that I was conducting serious research into the case, I found no evidence to suggest that Barnett was anything other than a decent, hard-working man.
Still, each to our own.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | | "In terms of the Ripper's general functionality, it is extremely unlikely that he could have held down a long-term intimate relationship. His employment record would have been erratic too. For some time prior to the murders, he would have become increasingly isolated as the obsession with his paraphilic fantasies intensified. By the time of the Nichols murder, every aspect of his life would have been dominated by the fantasy. This isn't guesswork, I hasten to add. It is the picture that has emerged through decades of empirical research into such men."
Mr. Wroe,
How do you know that all or part of this applies to Mr. Ripper himself? Hmmmm...? What you're doing is mobilizing a metaphorical army of suppositions, based not on Mr. Ripper as he appears in the case evidence but on other people instead, then claiming that this must apply to the man himself. Then, you cheerfully go about your business sorting out that one man in the case evidence who fits the criteria best, and --presto!-- case solved. I think you're counting on us to suspend disbelief in the face of your time/space warp, just so that we can get the big payoff of identifying the Ripper and knowing who to blame. We'll all sleep peacefully in our beds, thanks to you.
David |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 12:20 pm | | Garry:
Isn't it possible that the spring lock may have not *obviously* been a spring lock? I know there was a discussion on late Victorian cheap doorlocks but I dunno if anything ever got sorted.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Hello Timsta.
It is certainly a possibility that a spring lock wasn't recognized as such, but there are a number of problems with such a hypothesis. First, spring locks were common in Victorian London, so one would assume that somebody at the crime scene could have worked out what they were seeing. Then, of course, there is the reality of John McCarthy's presence. Since this was his property, he was presumably familiar with whatever locking mechanism was attached to the door. Trusting to memory, I also recall a newspaper piece in which McCarthy made mention of the fact that Kelly had recently lost her key so had resorted reaching in through the window to secure the room. Clearly, then, given his awareness that Mary Jane was able to come and go without a key, it must surely have occurred to him that the door could be opened from the outside.
But there is another consideration. Joe Barnett made mention of a bolt, not a spring lock, and an overwhelming majority of newspapers followed Barnett's lead. So if, as seems likely, the room was indeed secured by a bolt, it should have been plainly visible to those who examined the room via the window aperture. I also recollect a newspaper feature in which Abberline stated that he had searched Kelly's room in the hope of locating the missing key. This, to my way of thinking, suggests that the door must have been mortise-locked, otherwise why else would it have occurred to Abberline to search out the key?
It's certainly a strange one.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 07:28 am | | Hello Garry,
Thanks for the reply regarding the Caroline Maxwell evidence and for the suggestion that I should read your book.
I did indeed read the online version of your book and although naturally I dissagreed with some of the conclusions you have drawn,I found the piece as a whole,most enjoyable.
Given the fact we have so little information regarding Hutchinson,you have built a very impressive case against him.
Although reading your book made me rethink the issue regarding Caroline Maxwells evidence,I still find it difficult to dismiss it all as a case of mistaken identity.
The main problem I have is that Caroline Maxwell spoke of a man living with Kelly "Who payed her".
In your book you you suggest that Maxwell had possibly mistaken Kelly and Barnett for Catherine and David Pickett,who also live together in Millers court.
If this were true then surely this case of mistaken identity would have came to light at the Kelly inqest,as both Maxwell and Barnett attended. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:32 am | | Hi Arfa.
Many thanks for your kind comments. I'm please, too, that you enjoyed Person or Persons.
All I can offer in context of Carrie Maxwell is a reiteration of my earlier views. Whereas she described Kelly as short, dark and stout, those witnesses who we can be sure knew Kelly described her as tall, fair and slim. The crime scene photograph, too, depicts a slim rather than stout victim.
Your observation regarding both Maxwell and Barnett's attendance at the inquest hearing is extremely salient. The only possible explanation I can offer is that Mrs Maxwell didn't see Joe Barnett present his evidence. She was, after all, a night worker, so may have gone home immediately after giving her own evidence. In all honesty, I simply don't know. But it is certainly an issue deserving of further research.
The other major problem concerning Carrie Maxwell's claims is of course the medical evidence which suggested that Mary Jane had been dead for several hours prior to the Maxwell sighting. This, I would suggest, is not easily dismissed. Whilst it is perfectly possible that the medical estimations for Kelly's time of death were in error by an hour or two, I would be astonished if, between them, Bond and Phillips' projections were astray by four, five, possibly even six hours. This is not to say that such an error couldn't have occurred (I recall one English police investigation going horribly wrong when the pathologist attributed the wrong sex to a badly decomposed body, for example), only that it is extremely unlikely.
Doubtless, this is one topic that isn't going to go away.
All the best,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: kevin sharpe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Garry,
As mentioned on an earlier post I am new to reading about the Ripper murders. I first read a book on the subject in the late 80's. My interest was rekindled in the late 90's when I was transferred for work to the Whitechapel area with my office actually being on Commercial Street. (Naturally during my time there I visited the Jack the Ripper pub which was once the ten bells I believe) I would be interested if you could recommend reading material on the subject
regards Kevin Sharpe |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Hi Kevin.
My advice would be to click on 'Back to Casebook' (at the bottom-left of your screen) and then on Ripper Media. You then need to get into the 'Non-fiction' section where you will find a list and reviews of every Ripper book ever published. It shouldn't be too difficult to find something to suit your own personal taste from there.
If I can be of further help, please don't hesitate to ask.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 12:08 am | | "The crime scene photograph, too, depicts a slim rather than stout victim."
Pshaw, Mr. Wroe. The entirety of her encephelothoracic flesh has been removed in the photograph you cite--the structure is skinned right to the bone, her insides substantially extracted, and you can see the back wall through her rib cage. There is no way whatever to establish her relative stoutness or slimness from the photograph.
Time after time, first on your unpublished book and now here on the message boards, you make transparently incorrect or impossible statements in support of your position. The position is supposed to be based on the evidence; what you do is misstate the evidence in support of your predetermined position.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 12:31 am | | David-
You have got to be kidding us to make such an absurd claim.
The way you talk there was only a skeleton left after Jack got done. There's plenty of flesh on the sides of the torso to tell whether we're looking at a slim or stout woman. And those legs and arms are not the limbs of a stout person. Plus the people who knew Mary Kelly best all said she was slim.
So what exactly is your problem with stating the obvious fact that MJK was not stout and that the witnesses who claim she was (and who also misidentified Joe Barnett and made other equally telling mistakes) aren't to be as trusted as much as others?
You must have a doozy of a whacky theory if it requires such radical reinterpretations of basic evidence in order to work. Tell us again who your suspect was? Oh, wait, are you still afraid to tell us? Still claiming that all ripperologists are out to get you and won't treat your theory fairly? Say no more, say no more. At least Garry can present his theory and use facts to support it. No wonder you are so jealous of him.
Dan |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 12:21 pm | | "There's plenty of flesh on the sides of the torso to tell whether we're looking at a slim or stout woman. And those legs and arms are not the limbs of a stout person. Plus the people who knew Mary Kelly best all said she was slim."
Excuse me, but I can't find an ounce of truth in the above.
1. There is certainly insufficient flesh left on ther torso to make this determination--look at the picture and see for yourselves. The murderer did a three-dimensional skinning job.
2. The legs and arms might be those of either a slim or a stout person. A stoutly-built or portly person doesn't need to have thick appendages. I am myself such a person at the present time, not having gotten back into shape following major surgery a year ago. I've developed a big breadbasket--15-20 pounds overweight, but still have my former slim arms and legs. There are many millions of people built like me, too.
3. How do you know who knew MJK best? How do you establish, among the respondents, which ones knew her better than which other ones? How do you know, were you living in Miller's Court with Mary Jane, Mr. Norder? And please give us direct references to documented sources who stated that she was slim.
Your post indicates once again that you are nothing more than a blowhard, Mr. Norder. I'd like to recommend that the readers of this web site exercise great caution in using your posted material.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 12:51 am | | David,
If you "can't find an ounce of truth" then I submit that it's because you choose not to. There is more than enough flesh to determine that she was not a stout woman, and we know who knew MJK best because the same people who say she was stout also say she was living with a man who is manifestly not Joseph Barnett and other odd things we know are not true.
Thanks for adding a bit of humor with that "blowhard" comment. When someone of your dubious credentials and long history of disdain for ripperology in general personally insults me I know I must be posting good, solid, factual information. :-)
Dan |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 01:41 am | | "There is more than enough flesh to determine that she was not a stout woman..."
This is self-contradictory. If a large percentage of the flesh has been removed, how then can there be enough to determine that she was NOT a stout woman? Removing flesh would make her look thinner, no? Thus, before the flesh had been removed, she would have appeared stouter, yes?
"...we know who knew MJK best because the same people who say she was stout also say she was living with a man who is manifestly not Joseph Barnett and other odd things we know are not true."
This is a transparently dishonest procedure. What Mr. Norder wants us to believe is that because some people misidentified MJ's boyfriend, therefore MJ must have been skinny, because these same people said she was stout. In other words, if they were incorrect about who her boyfriend was, therefore they necessarily also must be incorrect about her girth. But these two aspects of MJ are totally unrelated, Mr. Norder--the boyfriend has nothing to do with the girth. And, for the second and last time, please give specific information, naming names, concerning who said these things.
If you really believe that what you are saying above makes sense, Mr. Norder, then truly I would feel sorry for you--You have some very significant problems. If you are simply knowingly lying, well, then I wouldn't.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 02:56 am | | Tsk, tsk, David.
If you aren't following this discussion there's nothing I can do to try to make it any clearer for you. And I'm not going to bother responding to lame insults from someone with your history on these boards. Sorry to disappoint you.
Dan |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 11:27 am | | Garry,
Thanks for your brilliant explanation in reply to my post.
A lot clear for me now.
Cheers again,
Monty
|
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 03:14 pm | | Hi Monty.
I don't know about brilliant, but I hope that it answers your questions.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 04:36 pm | | | Dave Radka: Hmm....I see you're makin' friends again ! I don't know Dan Norder from Joe Blow,but he posits some pretty good ideas. What do you do? Bust his balls for having posted ideas? Your reply to him about whether MjK was "stout" or blah blah blah,is simply nitpicking sissy stuff. . I know that if Mr.Evans had posted something about MjK's stoutness,either correctly or incorrectly,,you wouldn't have a hair on your ass to tangle with him. Why? Because your transparent fawning over published and established writers and desire to be one of them ( not in this life,Dave...) encourages your attacks on Mr.Wroe and Dan Norder.To illustrate my point, I'll go one step further.......One of the most respected ( by ME especially ) authorities on JtR has been quoted as telling a reporter in an article that HIS Ripper was "definitely" and with "no doubt",the Ripper.In other contexts,this writer I speak of has been reserved in his opinion and has theorized that the Ripper MAY be his suspect . Do some reading,Dave....find out who it was.and savage HIM like you do Messrs Wroe and Norder.Granted,this writer may not have said it. If he did,it ain't my business. I respect his ideas. You on the other hand would be eager to pounce on Ivor,Garry or some others for their pronouncements. I give you two days to find out who it was. I then toss the gauntlet down and dare you to tackle that writer for their pronouncement. My money says you haven't got the cojones ! |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 08:02 am | | Garry,
I understood it...
... and believe me, for you to get me to understand, it would have required an act of brilliance !!
Monty
|
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 10:33 am | | Cry for help.
Has anyone managed to get a copy of the 1901 census page for George Hutchinson Insurance agent born in Shadwell?
If so could they get in touch please
Bob Hinton |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 06:52 am | | Hi Bob just done a search and there are no George Hutchinson's who are Insurance agents
from
steve |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 10:03 am | | Hi Bob done another search and found him don't know why he didn't show up the first time
send me an email and I'll send a scan
That goes for anyone else interested
from
steve |
|
|
|
|
