|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 29, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Hutchinson, George (British):
Archive through March 29, 1999
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 04:03 am |        | I would surmise that George Hutchinson would closely resemble the description given by Sarah Lewis.As he was in the presence of Aberline and other officers for quite some time,any striking difference would surely have been noticed.
I would also presume that police patrols did include Dorset St,as one witness stated she thought the sound of heavy footsteps leaving the court,were those of a police officer.Would this be because the sound of police footsteps was not unusual even in Dorset St |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 02:32 pm | | Dear All,
One of the most important things about Hutchinson is why he made his statement when he did, it was after the inquest when it had been made common knowledge that he had been spotted.
As for him being a mugger, that is not logical. First off he would hardly roll someone only a few yards from where he lodged, too many people would recognise him.
Secondly what kind of mugger comes across his victims by accident? Because if you believe his statement that's exactly how he came to see the stranger, he looked back down the road and saw MJK being aproached by Mr Stranger. According to that scenario MJK was better at picking out likely pickings than he was. Muggers stalk victims, picking the time and the place to commit the crime.
Thirdly if he was a mugger why did he bother coming forward? Sarah Lewis didn't say that he was doing anything wrong. Why would anyone with criminal intent deliberately place themselves in the hands of the police - unless it was neccessary.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 03:21 pm | | Hi, Bob:
Thanks for your contribution. You say "Why
would anyone with criminal intent deliberately place themselves in the hands of the police - unless it was necessary." I do not think that George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper, but if we follow Melvin Harris's line of reasoning in regard to his suspect, Dr. Robert D'Onston Stephenson, D'Onston did exactly that. He came forward on Boxing Day 1888, and made a statement accusing Dr. Morgan Davies of being the killer, when he did not need to do so. Harris argues that this is in line with the proven need of a serial killer to associate himself with the investigation. So, since you think George Hutchinson may have been the Ripper, this could have been exactly what Hutchinson was doing, and could explain the strange timing of him coming forward after the inquest. Again, I am not saying that I believe either D'Onston or Hutchinson was the Whitechapel murderer, but such odd actions of people associated with the hunt for the Ripper are considerations to take into account.
Chris George |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 03:40 am | | Dear Chris,
Yes I agree with you that certain killers do have the need to insert themselves into the investigation, but here the assumption is that GH is merely a mugger. My point is that I,ve never heard of a mugger going to the authorities to do likewise.
Another point to consider in the 'Was he a mugger' debate is this. Mr Stranger was positively dripping with wealth, gold chains, tiepins, watches etc, surely such a bonanza would be worth an extended wait? And yet after a relatively short period of time GH abandons his vigil and does what? Wanders the streets in search of another victim? It just does not compute.
That person, if he existed and I maintain he did not, would have provided enough loot to keep any mugger going for several months, and yet GH didn't think it worthwhile to stick around.
Whatever reason GH had for waiting around it wasn't to rob this man. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 06:53 am | | Hi Bob,
How are you? I'm sorry but I have to correct you on this one. With nearly 30 years of active police service I have arrested and dealt with hundreds of criminals, for every sort of offence.
It really is not unknown for this sort of criminal to go to a police station. We had a good example of one who used to carry out burglaries. Two or three days after his latest 'job' he would be in the nick (police station) asking at the front desk if anyone was looking for him. It was a standing joke that if he did come in then the last 'job' was down to him. He used to worry after his 'jobs' that somehow we had got onto him. He was by no means unique.
By the way, just how many gold chains, watches, and tiepins did Hutchinson's suspect have? He sounds a veritable jeweller's shop! :-)
All the best,
Stewart |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 26 March 1999 - 11:18 pm | | Howdy Stewart, Bob!
Thanks for the analysis and clarification! Although I find Hutchinson an intriguing character in this drama, I tend to agree with Stewart's point. There's nothing to rule out mild criminal intent- mugging or thievery, as opposed to vicious murder. Even though I agree with Bob that most muggers would prefer to stalk their victims, I don't think it's out of the question that they could happen upon them or have one fall into their lap. In a sense, Hutchinson could have been stalking the suspicious man he described, since he followed him to MJK's and waited outside for a good length of time. Thanks for your great ideas and writings! Cheers.....Mike |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 27 March 1999 - 06:41 am | | Dear Stewart
Now you've let the cat out of the bag, here's us all thinking it was chasing
down desperate criminals with flashing lights and CS gas, and all the time
they just walk into the nick and give themselves up!
Your burglar sounds fascinating but I would venture to suggest that the
reason for committing these offences wasn't to enrich himself, but merely
to get some attention. I would hazard a guess that the burglaries were very
amateurishly carried out with very little of real value being taken. (It will
probably turn out he was Raffles and ended up nicking the Crown jewels!
So much for theories)
The case we have with Hutchinson is entirely different. Here we have
someone who is supposed to be a mugger, or so the theory goes. Now my
point is this, why would any mugger willingly go along to the police and
put himself in the frame when no mugging had taken place? I could
understand it if the man had been robbed, then of course the mugger
would wish to explain his presence - but no robbery took place. Or is it
being suggested that a mugger being thwarted in his attempt to be blamed
for a street robbery would wish to put himself in the spotlight for a
murder?
The main objection to the mugging theory is that there is absolutely no
connection between Hutchinson and the proposed victim.
The stranger came up behind Hutchinson, not the other way round.
The person Hutchinson spoke to and met was MJK not the stranger.
The couple were followed back to MJK lodgings.
Hutchinson knew MJK not the stranger
MJK was attacked not the stranger.
If it was the other way round, Hutchinson following the stranger up the
road, stranger meets MJK and they both go off together, yes I would agree
that there is a high possibility that Hutchinson was following the stranger
with evil intent, but it didn't happen that way.
As others have so rightly pointed out, there is no answer to this, its
impossible to know for a certainty, but if Hutchinson was a mugger he
must have been the most incompetent street robber we have ever seen!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 27 March 1999 - 01:24 pm | | Hi Bob,
You certainly are master of the colloquial generalisation and overstatement. No, you appear to have misunderstood the context, perhaps it wasn't clear. You stated that you have never heard of a mugger (or similar) going to the authorities, and I corrected you. Obviously the majority don't just walk into the police station, but some do and have. The example I cited was a burglar who specialised in garages and service stations and did some high value jobs, and he wasn't actually giving himself up, he was trying to find out if the police were seeking him. I took him down to Norwich Prison for his last two and a half year stretch imposed at Crown Court. As I said he was not the only example of similar behaviour and I speak from experience.
However, the suggestion in the context of Hutchinson was slightly different. If Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis (and he probably was) he may have been reluctant to intially go to the police as he had no good reason (other than the illegal one of waiting to rob the man) for waiting where he did. He would probably have been aware that Lewis saw him and as we do not know his activities following that night we do not know when he actually learned of the murder. It may not have been until the Monday when he came forward. If it was not then he may have become alarmed after Lewis gave her inquest evidence and felt it would look better for him to go forward with his story rather than risk being seen again by her and identified.
These are just suggestions and carry no more conjecture than your own theories about him. It may not be anything more sinister than idle curiosity on Hutchinson's part (and boredom as he had no cash for a bed for the night). Possibly after the long wait he became cold and tired and assumed the man was going to be some time before coming out, so he gave up and left. Or maybe he was an incompetent mugger.
I don't quite understand your point about a connection between Hutchinson and his proposed victim (if such was the case) as this sort of offence is usually opportunist, on a stranger and who is ostensibly carrying something worth stealing. He didn't have to be following the stranger, the opportunity presented itself and he took it, not realising that the man would not be coming back out from his session with Kelly which normally, one presumes, wouldn't have taken long.
So what was incompetent about that? If he was a mugger, and if the man had come back out after 20 minutes or so, he may have followed and mugged him while he was on his own.
I hasten to add here that I do not subscribe to the mugging theory, any more than I do to yours. I am merely presenting the more likely of two unilkely alternatives.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 04:22 am | | Stewart and Bob -
Congratulations, first, on a mature and interesting discussion. I don't pretend enough individual knowledge to refute either case, but I was wondering if you had read David Radka's posting from some months ago, which I thought quite persuasive.
He suggested that Hutchinson might have been a pimp, who was running MJK, and maybe one or two other local girls, and was simply keeping tabs on them for a while that night.
Obviously he couldn't admit this connection to the police, so would have to invent another, maybe implausible story to explain his interest in this girl and her client.
Does this make sense,do you think? I though it might be more plausible than either the 'lovelorn' image (rather ludicrous), and the mugger, which, while a pretty reasonable idea, did seem to raise a question about why he'd wait so long for one particular victim, rather than go on the prowl for others. Worth considering?
Karoline |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 05:06 am | | Hi Karoline,
Nice to hear from you again. As you realise the arguments and permutations are endless. We simply will never know for sure, all we do know is what is left in the police files, and, less accurately, the newspapers.
Yes, a mugger would wait a long time if he new that an ostensibly wealthy 'target' may be re-emerging onto a dark lonely side-street at 3.00 a.m. However, having dealt with literally hundreds of criminals in my time and can assure you that they often obey no logic, and do the strangest things. You simply cannot assume anything.
Thanks for the interest.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 05:09 am | | | Sorry, should be 'I can assure you' not 'and can assure you.' |
Author: Bob hinton
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 07:27 am | | Dear Stewart,
Perhaps I should have bracketed my first paragraph with the words 'tongue in cheek', I am not really under the illusion that every criminal walks into the nick to give himself up.
Actually what I said was I have never heard of a mugger going to the authorities to insert himself into the investigation, not a 'mugger or similar'. Similar could be construed as any other lawbreaker, and obviously I am quite aware that some lawbreakers do just that.
I don't think I agree with your statement that criminals often obey no logic. Human beings always behave logically - its just that their logic may not conform to other peoples. One of the main tasks of offender profiling is to unearth just what that logic may be.
I agree entirely with what you say about never knowing what the truth is, but it is fun to speculate.
Dear Karoline,
I believe this is the first time I've replied to one of your postings. The idea that Hutchinson may have been a pimp is another one that is quite popular. I think the main objections to that is that he doesn't seem to enter the picture until right at the end. I believe that if someone was running MJK there would have been indications of it beforehand, and yet despite several people calling on her, Maria Harvey, Joe Barnett, other unidentified males (possibly Morganstone and Flemming) no one seems to have put this idea forward.
The other point that negates this idea is that according to Barnett MJK had kept off the streets for several months, and the reason for their bust up was her return. Now since this happened only a matter of days before she was killed, this doesn't seem long enough for a pimp to have moved in and started running her.
Don't forget that when working girls felt themselves threatened by someone it wasn't long before the news got around. Look at what happened to Pizer, several women came forward to give information on him, and yet as I say there was nothing at all about someone running MJK as a pimp, certainly nothing pointing to Hutchinson. Still its certainly something to bear in mind.
I've heard many reasons why Hutchinson didn't come forward sooner, a lot of it suggesting that people just didn't want to get involved with this kind of crime.
If you look at the murder of Phyllis Dimmock you will see that doesn't seem to be the case.
Phyllis Dimmock was found in a locked room in Camden town with her throat cut wide open in 1907. She, like MJK, was living with a man as a common law wife, who was under the impression she had given up her former life as a prostitute. Like MJK she didn't give up the streets entirely and was murdered.
However unlike MJK anyone who had any information about the case came forward quite willingly and made statements, and they did it straight away, not leave it for two or three days. Police investigation turned up more evidence and eventually a man named was arrested for the murder. Although he was subsequently acquitted this case does seem to indicate that even when the victim is a prostitute this does not prevent witnesses from coming forward in an attempt to see justice done.
By the way I would suggest that this case bears looking at, the similarities between this and MJK's murder are quite remarkable. I'm not suggesting for one moment that the same man was responsible for both, merely that it is an intresting parallel study.
all the best to everyone
Bob Hinton |
Author: RLeen
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 11:13 am | | Re: Hutchinson the pimp.
Hello there,
If Hutchinson was pimping MJK then surely he would have waited for the John to leave her home alone. This would mean that he could either get a bed for the night or a cut of the money [to get digs elsewhere].
Hutchinsons whole story doesn't seem credible. The description that he gave of the stranger who approached MJK seems almost sterotypical, i.e. some "toff" out slumming. It is this description, more than most, that gives us the image of JTR and it seems to have been an image that was already commonplace at the time.
As to Hutchinsons guilt, I think that he committed the last murder certainly, the earlier crimes were not related to this one.
With this sweeping generalisation I shall take my leave and await the heaps of scorn to be thrown onto my ramblings.
Cheers
Rabbi Leen |
Author: bob Hinton
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 01:49 pm | | Dear Rabbi,
Remember what Voltaire said I disaprove of what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it
Keep posting
Bob Hinton |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 01:51 pm | | Hi, Rabbi Leen:
No abuse from me. I think your observation about the man Hutchinson said he saw is a good one, i.e. , he gave a description of the type of suspect that was already one of the suspect types mooted in the press, i.e., a foreign-looking man and an outsider. So here again we have to wonder if Hutchinson's "suspect" was actual or whether he was telling the police and the press afterward what they were expecting to hear. As you say, "It is this description, more than most, that gives us the image of JTR and it seems to have been an image that was already commonplace at the time." Hutchinson's suspect description also adds to the mythic quality of Jack and the legend that has built up over time, adding it to the classic mutilations, the letters to the press, the Goulston graffito, the infamous name "Jack the Ripper," and the general hue and cry. Today, 111 years later Jack is much larger than life because of all these ingredients. Hutchinson's description, for whatever reason he gave it, even if he was totally on the level in describing the man he saw, adds to the phenomenon we know today as Jack the Ripper.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 04:47 pm | | Hi A.M.P., Bob H, Cal, Chris, Harry, Jules, Karoline, Rabbi L & Stewart!
Rabbi: What is Hutchinson's motive for killing Mary Kelly?
As I said elsewhere, the simple explanation works for me - George hoped for a warm bed on a cold night - and maybe a small loan, which Mary couldn't give him until her "trick" left. The temperature was in the 40s that night & if Hutchinson owned a big warm coat & decent boots, he was one of the few in that 'hood who did. When he could no longer bear the cold, he took shelter in an alley & wrapped himself in an old tarp.
I've no facts to back my scenario up yet, & remain open-minded in the meanwhile.
A.M.P. posted back in January the rule at Victoria House (where George usually stayed) "No persons will be admitted after one o’clock a.m. without a special pass". Research that turns up more facts or near-facts (we've no proof yet that George didn't have a pass) like this - will help more than any flights of fancy my vivid imagination dreams up.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: dlee
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 10:27 pm | | Hi All,
I would like to amend the URL given previosuly for Casebook Productions:
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/
Dave Yost |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 29 March 1999 - 04:11 am | | Hi all,
I add my keyboard to the remarks of others concerning CGH. His description of the man with Kelly was so complete that I wonder if he did make most, when not all, of it up.
It was night, the street wasn't all that illuminated, he could have had only a minute or so at most to observe the man, but he could describe the colour of the jewel on the man's watch chain.
I have, with a colleague, attempted to do the same on broadly lit modern streets with lamps all over the place. The object person carried a number of different dark (red, blue, green etc.) coloured artefacts, all the same shape ( 5 small child's building blocks) and I attempted to discern the colour of a randomly chosen block held against the waist in the shadow of an open jacket front from about three paces distance.
We attempted in sodium lamp light as well as mercury vapour, finishing with the light from a closed but illuminated shop. I could not get a single correct selection, getting the colour wrong in average four from five times, which is a pretty correct chance result. We lose the ability to discern colours at not very low light levels, so I do wonder if Hutch made some, when not all, up.
I changed places with my colleague , incidentally, and he got a better result, correctly getting one test from about 20 complete, but only in mercury vapour light. Either he eats more carrots than I do or I need glasses. Due to the rarity of mercury vapour lamps in 1888, we decided that this test had to be ignored for purposes connected with George.
It has been put forward that one reason for believing George is the evident trust put in him by the police then. Even his repeated statements were near enough not to contradict, while containing enough differences to be taken seriously. We should not forget, however, that the police were desperately seeking evidence and George COULD have been telling the truth. They may have chosen to believe him because they had so good as almost nothing else to go on. Why should he lie?, you may ask. Why do people lie in circumstances such as these?
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 29 March 1999 - 05:09 am | | Perhaps the reason Hutchinson came forward voluntarily was that the description of the person
seen at Crossingham's was accurate.this being so he might have reasoned that the police would look first among the local populance for this man,and he certainly would be included.As he would be of a still fewer number without an adequate explanation for his whereabouts,the sensible thing to do was to come forward with a statement. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 29 March 1999 - 05:18 am | | Hi y'all.
I see 2 possibilities for Hutchinson being able to give a description so detailed.
1) A photographic memory. In which case, he could have retold the incident 100 times without varying the details.
2) He had some type of training or exposure to observing minute details. Like his father was a haberdasher or a valet. Or perhaps George was an amateur artist. If someone in his family was a cop, I think we'd already know it.
PETER or PAUL: Is anyone working on tracing his parents or descendants?
Every reference I have lists Hutchinson as an unemployed casual worker, but I don't own all the books yet. The Victoria Home was a bit more high-class than most doss houses - would they have kept a registry book, listing their guests employers?
A.M.P. = If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a copy of that article on the Victoria Home, please.
BOB = Good work. Where do you get all these ideas?
:^)
Take care,
Ashling |
|
|
|
|
