Archive through April 1, 1999

** 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 April 1, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Hutchinson, George (British): Archive through April 1, 1999

Author: D. Radka Monday, 29 March 1999 - 01:40 pm
Hutchinson may have seen nothing more than a typical pick up. After concluding the transaction, albeit a bit longer a one than usual (perhaps considering the client's age) the Astrakan Hebrew simply left. The murderer appeared later. Or, Hutchinson is correctly relating a typical pick up, but what he is not saying is that the Astrakhan Hebrew left after twenty minutes, whereupon Hutchinson knocked on Mary's door and murdered her. His reason for going to the police would be to clear himself. Or, Hutchinson is correctly describing a real Astrakhan Hebrew that he did actually meet and take notice of, but perhaps three years before at a horse race. Therefore, everything Hutchinson says to Abberline is correct, Abberline can't find any contradicting details it in, so Abberline believes in it. Hutchinson's reasons here might be to get the police chasing this Astrakhan Hebrew fellow instead of certain other names Hutchinson has in his little black book, who have notified Hutchinson that they have patronized Mary Jane, and are in fear that the police investigation will result in their names being made available to the public, in which cases they fear their wives would leave them. David
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 29 March 1999 - 01:41 pm
Hello All, There have been many reasons given for Hutchinsons detailed description, including the ones given recently, photographic memory and a fine eye for detail. However this is overlooking the fact that regardless of these two attributes what Hutchinson claimed he saw was just not possible to see. Let me explain. Hutchinson claims that he stood against the lamp at the Queens Head (interestingly enough in the original statement this was written as the Ten Bells, scored out and corrected) to look at the man. Lamps in those days did not have a mantle just a gas flame. The illumination they gave was roughly a three feet circle at the base of the lamp and this only a dull glow, this is assuming the crystal is perfectly clean and clear. The idea was not to illuminate the street as it is today, but give circles of light which would mark out the pavement the idea being you made your way from one circle of light to the next. This was one reason prostitutes used to stand underneath lamps so they could be seen. Lili Marlene wasn't daft. (I believe Melvyn Harris like myself has duplicated a Victorian gas lamp for experimentation purposes, and I used Butane which burnt a lot brighter and cleaner than the coal heavy gas the Victorians used) This would mean that the first chance Hutchinson would get in seeing his man in optimum conditions would be when he entered this circle. Up till then he would only be a shadowy figure, only partially illuminated by other light from shops etc. This would be enough to establish he was a man but little more. Natural light was severely restricted as it was overcast and raining, fourth day of new moon. It would take less than a second to walk into and out of this three foot circle. Hutchinson waited until he was underneath the light and then stooped down and looked him in the face. He also states that the mans head was down and the hat over his eyes. The only source of illumination was above the man, the man wore a brimmed hat, with his head down this would mean his face would be in complete shadow, impossible to distinguish the colour of his eyes and eyelashes. If you don't believe me try it for yourself and I don't care if you use a 100 watt bulb you still cannot see the colour of a persons eyes under these circumstances. Secondly if he was staring into the mans face, his field of vision would be severely restricted. A photographic memory only works if you actually see what it is you're trying to remember. Try it for yourself. Get within a foot or two of someone and stare into their face, your vision is restricted to that and perhaps a few inches up or down you certainly can't see a persons waist, and definitely cannot see a persons shoes and yet Hutchinson gives you the colour of his gaiter buttons! Apart from it being physically impossible to do what he says he did, look at the situation logically. The night was wet and cold, almost freezing. Yet Hutchinson describes the mans watchchain, his jacket his waistcoat and the collar of his shirt. This would mean that the man was totally open to the elements. This does not make sense, in those weather conditions if you had a nice warm overcoat 'trimmed with astracan' wouldn't you be bundled up like Scott of the Antarctic? Apart from which if you had all that jewellery would you seriously be wandering around Whitechapel at two in the morning with all your wealth on open display? The only thing missing would be a neon sign saying 'Rob me here' suspended above your head. What Hutchinson describes is not a man but a tailors dummy. Look in any tailors window and you will see dummy's attired just so with everything open and on display, but we all know we don't go wandering around the streets like that. Of course a mistake he did make was describing the man as wearing spats (gaiters) spats were morning wear to be worn between breakfast and lunch, but perhaps George wasn't up on mens fashions. Everyone's comments are most welcome! Bob Hinton
Author: Karoline Monday, 29 March 1999 - 02:59 pm
Dear All - I see the problems with Hutchinson the pimp. In fact it does seem very hard to find any good reason for what he was doing that night, doesn't it? His description of the man he claims to have seen does read so much like the over-compensation of a poorly educated individual, who thinks that more detail equals more credibility. And it does seem impossible that he really observed all that stuff about collars and watch chains. The point about the cold night is a good one. Mr. X's 'astrakhan' coat would surely have been done up, with a dress coat of some kind beneath. No one would have seen his watch chain. I think, almost certainly H. made a lot of his statement (maybe all of it), up, but that doesn't tell us anything about why. RE; Phyllis Dimmock. This is the Camden Town murder, isn't it, that Robert Wood was charged with, but was aquitted. As I remember, he was identified as PD's killer from the very beginning. He was a known associate of hers, was recognised in her company just prior to the killing. But the fact that he was a nice middle class young man, and the witnesses were all low-class types and whores, meant that Wood got off, while one of the prostitutes who came forward to identify him was turned into a national hate figure by the press of the time. Maybe this tells us something else about JTR, beside Bob's point. Maybe the awareness of there being a separate kind of justice for people of his kind was what kept H. from coming forward? I think it might be important not to forget exactly how hard it was for men of that type to feel safe in any kind of dealing with the law, even if they had (for the time being), done nothing wrong. Our comfy sense that the justice system is on our side is something that comes with our background. H. would have been used to seeing that same system as the enemy - even when it was no such thing. Take care Karoline
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 29 March 1999 - 04:07 pm
The Lighting of London. London was chiefly lit at this time by gas, and the amount of luminant consumed ran into large figures. The Metropolitan Gas Companies, were three in number. They were the Gas Light and Coke Company, the South Metropolitan Company and the much smaller Commercial Company. These companies did the larger proportion of work, but around their districts, and branching into them, were many minor companies whose output was also included in any estimate of consumption. All included these companies the consumption of London was 29,000,000,000 cubic feet of gas a year. This was led through the streets in over 3,800 miles of mains, and obtained from 2,850,000 tons of coal. (To imagine this amount of coal, if piled together it would form a rectangular heap about as long, broad and as high as St Paul's Cathedral, including the lightning conductor on the cross.) Most of the work was done by the Gas Light and Coke Company who lit over 60 square miles and owned over 1,800 miles of main. They were the amalgamation of several companies, with works scattered all over London. They had storage stations at Agar Town Bethnal Green, Battersea, Vauxhall, and Horseferry Road. They had the works of the old Imperial Company at Bromley, Shoreditch, Fulham, and St. Pancras; the old Great Central works at Bow; the Independent works at Haggerston; the Nine Elms works of the old London; the Pimlico works of the Equitable; and the Kensal Green works of the Western. Their largest station was at Beckton, which made as much gas as the rest put together. Beckton gas lit the London street lamps up to fifteen miles from where it was made. From Beckton to Horseferry Road ran two mains each four feet in diameter. To make the gas the coal was cooked in retorts, and every ton of coal yielded gave off about 10,000 cubic feet of gas, 12 sacks of coke, 10 gallons of tar, 14 gallons of ammoniacal liquor, and 1 hundredweight of breeze. The gas produced had to be of a certain lighting standard so that it fed a light that was perennial and was in constant comparison with a photometer to keep it up to the mark. The gas bill for London was �4,000,000 per year. Some of the streets in the London area at that time were also illuminated by petroleum. Electricity was also beginning to be introduced. [Electricity companies were set up under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 and 1888. The Grosvenor Gallery had been lit by electricity as early as 1884]. Just a few lighting facts from the time that I thought may be of interest. With regard to what Bob says above about how much light was given out, I really don't think that it was quite as bad as he says. After all, if it was how come all the other witnesses, especially in the case of Stride who even gave the colour of the flower she was wearing, were so good? Also, surely if it was that impossible for a person to be clearly seen the police would have not accepted Hutchinson's evidence for one minute. They weren't stupid.
Author: Stephen P. Ryder Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 09:17 am
Kudos to Stewart for adding a very "enlightening" piece. =) The lighting of London's streets is a subject important enough to merit its own topic, so I have copied Stewart's post to General Discussion: Street Lighting in London, 1888. Those interested in pursuing this thread are invited to participate there (so as to help maintain organization within the boards). Thanks!
Author: Karoline Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 12:54 pm
Stewart,Bob etc. That is a masterly essay on the street lighting, mr. Evans. The kind of thing that makes this place a valuable research-resource. But I think what strikes me about H.'s description of Mr. X is how unlikely it would be for any one to observe that amount of detail - under any circumstances, streetlit or daylit. Of course 'unlikely' is not 'impossible', and I do think there's a lot of ground to cover between H. very possibly making up his testimony, and H. being JTR. But it is (unlike so much of the 'evident by absence' evidence), a genuine anomaly, isn't it? At least with my less-than exhaustive knowledge it seems that way. I love being corrected though, so do so, if necessary. This has probably been covered a million times before, but I am still a tyro, (or at least I can't be bothered to look things up in a legion of back-postings), so I hope you don't mind bearing with me: I wonder, is there any additional evidence, beside his odd and belated testimony, to suggest H.'s guilt? Karoline
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 01:37 pm
Hi Stewart! Wow! All I did was connect an old lamp up to a gas cylinder. In all seriousness though this is just the kind of information that is needed, comprehensive, clear and factual, and certainly enlightening. I agree entirely with your assertion that the police weren't stupid, indeed I've tried to make that point in my book. Of course the point that I would raise is it is my theory that Abberline did not accept Hutchinson's statement, he may have done so publicly, but privately not. However this, I must add, is purely my own speculation. I feel I should just say for those readers who may be under the impression that Stewart and I are always daggers drawn that nothing could be further from the truth. Stewart has been extremely helpful to me with my research and has been extremely generous with his time and material. I would say that he epitomises Voltaires dictat, and is certainly a credit to the field of Criminology. (usual Swiss account please Stewart) Dear Karoline, Interesting points. Woods was not immediately suspected in the Camden town murder, it wasn't until several weeks later he was in the frame. I feel I should point out that the enquiry was a model of what police work should be, each clue placed in a chain that led to an arrest. Many witnesses did come forward to assist the police. You are right about the outcome, and probably right for the reason. Marshall Hall did not take prisoners when it came to defending a client, and several witnesses, especially poor Ruby Young came in for some pretty horrific treatment, mainly whipped up by the News of the World (so no change there then) There is little doubt in my mind that Wood did kill poor Phyllis. I would urge anyone who is not familiar with this case to read up on it as it does show some remarkable similarities to Mary Kelly's death. all the best to everyone Bob Hinton
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 02:11 pm
Karoline, Thank you. I will put my objective head on. I have pointed out on many occasions that, unfortunately, we simply do not have enough solid evidence to assess the accuracy of what a single witness may have observed when such evidence is uncorroborated. So, as always, we are left with personal opinion, interpretation, and, to no small degree, imagination. And this is where the debates start. Me? I like to think that the straightforward and most common sense interpretation is correct. And experience has proved this to normally be the case. This subject, as you know, is a fertile ground for the theorists and fantasists. I do not say this in a derogatory way, good luck to them. I will try, as always, to stick with the facts. As regards Hutchinson is has to be said that Abberline was a vastly experienced senior detective, and it was he who reported on Hutchinson. Therefore we are left with (a) What Hutchinson stated. (b) What Abberline stated. Hutchinson's statement, one of the few witness statements to survive on the files [MEPO 3/140 ff 227-229], is too well known to need repeating here. It was taken by Sergeant Badshaw, at Commercial Street Police Station when Hutchinson went in there at 6 p.m. on Monday, November 12, 1888. This was after the Kelly inquest, held earlier that day, and the reason for his delay in approaching the police is not known. Inspector Abberline then interrogated him the same evening, no doubt armed with the already written statement. (A result of this may have been the amendment of 'Ten Bells' to 'Queens Head Public House', presumably an error). As murder victims are more often than not murdered by someone who knows them (usually very well), and Hutchinson's sighting made him the last person (apart from the murderer) to see her alive (I do not subscribe to the later sighting by Mrs Maxwell as you know), he would initially be a very obvious suspect. This is virtually confirmed by Abberline's use of the word interrogated. Abberline's report [MEPO 3/140 ff230-232] was written and forwarded to Superintendent Arnold the same night. The relevant part reads - "An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible. Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 a.m. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased. Several arrests have been made on suspicion of being connected with the recent murders, but the various persons detained have been able to satisfactorily account for their movements and were released. F.G.Abberline Inspr T.Arnold Supt." I therefore think it safe to say that no suspicion attached to Hutchinson in Abberline's mind after his 'interrogation.' It is also interesting to note that Hutchinson had known Kelly longer than Barnett had, had given her money (no doubt he enjoyed favours or a relationship in return), and he would appear to have made a further identification of her body (the result of which we do not know) after that made by Barnett and McCarthy. Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 03:23 pm
Thanks for the kind remarks Bob, pleased to be of assistance. Our messages crossed as I was a bit long-winded with mine! Stewart
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 04:14 am
Hi all, Stewart, I add my voice to congratulate you on an excellent piece. Ashling, thanks for the flowers although my profession (I am a researcher in laser medical physics) leads me to have it necessary to invent such and other tests almost on a daily basis. I haven't got around to experimenting with gas lamps, but I can remember them as child. I do believe, however, that they were fitted with mantles then, and were probably brighter as in the Victorian times. I have indeed wondered about the quality of some testimony, wondering how so much could be seen in the near dark, but I do know that there were coffee stalls, shops etc. still open late and many were privately illuminated. The amount of background light may have been higher as we now believe, or maybe people were accustomed to the dark more than we are today and could simply see better. Karoline's and Bob Hinton's points are also well worth consideration, although with Jack we don't even have a real suspect, unlike Woods. Best regards Bob
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 05:18 am
Bob,Stewart,etc I have followed closely the exchanges of information regarding the Hutchinson,Aberline participation.I think some consideration to the human element must be made. On that monday evening Aberline must have been in a dejected and exhausted condition,mentally as well as physically,and prone to overlook important considerations. While most followers of the case have suspicions that Hutchinson's testimony was false,Aberline takes the opposite view,based it seems on one interview.There is no indication that hutchinson's supposed total recall powers was put to the test,or that his movements as stated by him,were checked. The acceptance of his truthfullness by Aberline surely prevented any further interest by police, or a possible search of his rooms. It is not surprising that Aberline rejected the asylum identification of J.T.R,if in his opinion Hutchinson must have been the person best in a position to make an identification.
Author: RLeen Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 07:06 am
Hello Mr Hinton and all, Mr Hinton's comments "What Hutchinson describes is not a man but a tailors dummy" raises an interesting point. If we remember Hutchinson explains to MJK that he cannot give her any money because he had been "down Romford." Romford was the situation of a dog racetrack so it may be speculated that the inspiration for Hutchinsons bravura perspication was actually a person, a bookmaker for example, also attending the race. Furthermore, could somebody offer a valid reason for Hutchinson to sit on his testimony until after the enquiry. Is it possible that he left London for a few days after the MJK murder so was not aware of the enquiry date and, more suspicously, had not heard the testimony that a man fitting his description was seen in the area. If he had left the area in a hurry, I wonder what the reason was..... Thanking you for your consideration Rabbi Leen
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 10:58 am
Hi Rabbi Leen, A reason why I tend to think that CGH wasn't Jack is because the only connection with him was the death of Mary Kelly. The is no evidence that CGH had any sort of relationship with the other victims, possibly not even knowing them. Of course he COULD have known the others, if he was a pimp being in the 'trade', he may well have. Nothing was mentioned at the various inquests or anywhere else, though. I do tend to feel that CGH would have been more of a suspect then if he had. Good point about Romford. CGH could well have 'gone to the dogs', which is why he was bust when Kelly asked him (if she did) for money. Best regards Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 02:32 pm
Dear All, This is getting really good. One possible reason why Hutchinson was in Romford is that his sister Ann was born there so it is possible that he had some family/friends still in the Romford area. Bob Hinton
Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 03:20 pm
Hi Bob, ..and the dog races. Of course we (I) may have been unfair to CGH. But we may be unfair when we suspect him of being a pimp etc. Who knows? Even if CGH did go to the dogs, that doesn't make him a viable suspect for being Jack. In any case, he must have known MJK and may, may have had a relationship with the girl. When he testified that she asked him for money, she may well really have solicited him and learnt that he was broke. After all, there is nothing strange in that. I still haven't even tried to get your book, Bob. Please don't be dispirited, I've been tween duvil an' deepsee for the last month at work, but I promise to get it now that things are getting more quiet. Best regards, Bob
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 06:24 pm
Hello Bob, R. Leen The first greyhound racing in Britain took place at Belle Vue, Manchester on 24/Jly/1926. The first properly organised meeting had taken place in Emeryville, California in 1919. Therefore, there is no likelihood that Hutchinson that lost his money playing the duel forecasts on the night in question! Regards, V
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 08:49 pm
Hi y'all. I thought Hutchinson went to Romford to look for work. It would have been more practical for Hutch to spend the night with his sis Ann & strike out for London early the next morning. How much is known of his sister -- Did she have 20 kids sleeping in one room - So that there was "no room at the inn" for her brother? Thanks for the doggie update Viper. Take care, Ashling
Author: Bob_c Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 02:59 am
Hi Viper, Haven't heard from you for some time. Bang! You've shot me down. Best regards Bob
Author: Peter Birchwood Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 10:46 am
Viper and Bob: Consider yourself unshot, Bob:: The first greyhound race in England using an artificaial hare was 7th October 1876 at the Welsh Harp, Hendon. Although I doubt that the Romford track was open in 1888, there is a possibility. Peter.
Author: Peter Birchwood Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 11:02 am
Has anyone ever checked to see if by a remote chance the Hutchinson in London and the Hutchinson in the Illinois bin are the same man? I'd suggest someone checking the Elgin IL 1880 census.