Archive through May 1, 2000

** 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 May 1, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses: George Hutchinson: Archive through May 1, 2000

Author: The Viper Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 07:36 pm
During a good discussion in the Chat Room with �Jon S� a few weeks back, the subject of George Hutchinson�s address arose. Neither of us could remember it. Looking it up afterwards, it is given as �Victoria Home, Commercial Street� in most the Ripper books. Somewhere in the Casebook, (it seems to have gone walkabouts around the time the new format was introduced), was an article disputing the whereabouts of the Victoria Home. One party was saying that it was on the corner with Wentworth Street. Another suggested the corner with Folgate Street. I decided to look into this point. In fact Bob Hinton in his new book �From Hell� settles the argument conclusively in my view, since he uses the 1891 census return. I have only just obtained this book from the library and in the meantime have conducted a little independent research. Sorry if most of this is redundant now, but for anybody interested here are a few more details� George Hutchinson�s abode, the �Victoria Working Mens Home� was indeed 39-41 Commercial Street. This was the building, which stood on the west side of Commercial Street, at the southern corner with Wentworth Street. Directly across the main road was the Princess Alice public house, now called the City Darts. A quick hunt through Kelly�s Directories for some of the years prior to 1888 revealed nothing about 41 Commercial Street. Through the 1880s, until some time in 1887, numbers 37 and 39 were the premises of Hollington Brothers, who were wholesale clothiers. Between 1888 and 1890 there is no mention of any usage for these addresses, (there is nothing unusual in that). I have not been able to ascertain whether the old buildings were pulled down and rebuilt in this period. That is possible, though none of the surrounding shops were rebuilt. What seems more likely is that the premises were simply converted to housing. So it does appear that the Victoria Home was not a Peabody building as has been claimed in some quarters. (The confusion here no doubt arises from the fact that the Folgate Street corner site was a Peabody building). Victoria Home is first listed in the 1891 edition of Kelly�s. The Manager�s name was Augustus Wilke, who gave his own address as the Emigrant�s Home in Blackwall. He also managed another Victoria Homes enterprise at 77 Whitechapel Road. That site appears in Kelly�s for the first time in 1891 too. In common with other nearby places in the neighbourhood, the Victoria Home was some kind of charitable or philanthropic institution. Kelly�s Directory lists it under the section 'Homes & Refuges'. Next door, 37 Commercial Street became the 'United Brothers Club', whilst The Toynbee Hall stood almost opposite. There was also an orphanage at 60 Commercial Street. Having settled the matter of Hutchinson�s address another thought sprang to mind. He claimed to the press to have walked back from Romford along the Whitechapel Road and turned directly into Commercial Street. In that case he must have walked straight past his home before he encountered Mary Kelly near Flower & Dean Street, and carried on until he reached the pub at the corner of Fashion Street. There he stopped and looked back to watch Kelly meet her well-dressed client. Since he�d just walked about twelve miles and all the pubs and shops would be shut at 2 a.m. Hutchinson�s behaviour seemed rather odd, though not necessarily sinister; Commercial Street was lit and he might have seen Kelly, whom he knew, ahead in the lamp light. A further disappointment was in store� Hinton had already spotted this. It�s on p243 of his book! If anybody can contribute more information about the Victoria Home, feel free to add it here. Likewise any thoughts about Hutchinson's actions and statement. Regards.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 11:46 pm
Hi, Viper, Forgive the length...as is usual with me. Once again I find myself defending the dead. And Viper, I'm not speaking against you or your post in what follows. I suppose I'm too hard on Hinton, but...what the Hell! I have not read Hinton's book yet, but I looked up the reference Viper mentioned and was startled to read the conclusions that were drawn. Just to check a nasty premonition, I also found Hinton's portrayal of Schwartz's testimony. I noticed the same problems. I'll still read his book (I paid for it already!) but none of the conclusions I read held up under even the slightest scrutiny. I admire Hinton for understanding and admitting that at some juncture in the case of JtR some supposition or conjecture must be made. We need to do this because of lapsed time and missing documentation. But how many conjectures are we allowed to make? And of what nature? In Hinton's case: Can we honestly believe we can determine everyone's motives 110 years later -- when JtR's is hard enough? Or everyone's states of mind at various times? Why did Hutchinson walk right past his house after walking 12 miles, arriving back in his locale at around 2:00 a.m.? Why don't we ask him? What, you say? Yazoo you idiot, he's dead! We have to think of a logical reason or pose a reasonable conjecture as to why he acted as he did. But if we can think to ask him that question, who in 1888 could also have thought of it? And who could get an answer that satisifed him, using his own powers to investigate Hutchinson's answers and make a much more reasonable and accurate conclusion? Abberline. I found Hinton's account of Hutchinson to be full of supposition as to dead people's states of mind. Hutchinson HAD to make his eyewitness statement to either "conceal or reveal" -- Hinton's words. Why did he have to make his concealing or revealing testimony? He was spotted by Sarah Lewis. Now Hinton casts doubt on even the possibility that Hutchinson could see well enough in the street circumstances of 1888, after dark, gaslighting, to provide HIS detail...but he wants us to believe that Lewis could!!!! -- Lewis, who was farther away from Hutchinson than Hutchinson supposedly was from Kelly and her client. That is not logically consistent, therefore one or both statements or conclusions in Hinton's argument are wrong. You decide which or both. I don't care. The method is what matters and it collapses if you just look at it, let alone lean on it! Further on we get Abberline filing a false report, merely claiming he believed Hutchinson to fool that wicked press (damn those pesky reporters...if it weren't for them, JtR would have been behind bars in August 1888, huh?). On what evidence does this aspersion fall upon Abberline? Nada, nothing, Hinton found his suspect and sets him up, including a police cover-up! In 1903, in his Pall Mall Gazette interview, does Abberline mention Hutchinson as his suspect? Does he congratulate Godley that he found JtR when Godley arrests...who? Hutchinson? Nope. George (aka, Severin Klosowski) Chapman! Oh hell, is Abberline lying in 1903? Like he was filing false reports in 1888? What evidence do we have that Abberline lied or falsified anything? None. Or rather, Hinton's logic again. Here too it falls apart on its own...don't even have to touch it! We're also subjected to another theory about another meaningless detail in the JtR field. Who was the witness Anderson brought to identify his (Anderson's) suspect? What does it matter? But Hinton says it can't be Hutchinson because Hinton says Abberline secretly spread the word about Hutchinson's reliability and Abberline's suspicions. Hinton admits this is speculation, but he also states "There are some very strange incidents that make any other expanation practically untenable." Oh, indeed? What might those be? The Anderson witness! Since the Anderson witness wasn't Hutchinson, Hinton finds that "strange." I also find it strange that the witness was called NOT to identify Hutchinson, but a Polish Jew -- in Anderson's own words "...in saying that he (JtR) was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." Not only does Hutchinson have some 'splainin' to do about his reasons for being on the street on the night of Kelly's murder, he's also gotta 'splain why he was masquerading as an English Protestant until Anderson discovered him to be -- in Hinton's Hell -- Polish, Jewish, and JtR as well!!! Where was Hutchinson living that night? Previous to that night he was living at this Victoria Working Men's Home. Was his rent paid up to and including that night? I dunno. Did he have any money that night to pay his "doss?" I dunno; George says he told Kelly he was broke...he walked 12 miles just to get home. Was he in Rumford for the view or to find work/money? I dunno. When he got back to town, was he possibly walking to meet Kelly -- perhaps his secret flame? I dunno. Was he walking cuz he was broke and wouldn't have a hope from -- excuse me -- Hell in findng one until later in the morning? I dunno. Does it matter unless you need to find something suspicious about this dead man -- who can't defend himself -- to accuse him of being JtR? Yes, I think that's the only reason why any of it matters. Hinton makes more truly insupportable conclusions in fewer pages than I've seen yet -- like JtR HAD to carry his knife in a sheath; Hutchinson was accompanied by detectives NOT because Hutchinson (rather than Schwartz, Lawende, whoever) was CERTAIN he could identify the man he saw but because Abberline was suspicious of old George H. and wanted to PREVENT old George H. from killing again. (Don't think about why Abberline just didn't follow Hutchinson to catch him in the act or you'll be offered a book contract on the spot!) Hinton knows, I know, and you know that some reasonable suppositions must be made. But just any old suppositions won't do. You need to state your logic or reasoning to cajole and coerce the rest of us down your conjectural path. But just any old logical sounding statement won't do either. Once again, credentials mean little here. The proof is in the work. If the "work" falls upon upon the slightest scrutiny...what's left to say? I dunno! Sorry. Knowing JtR "got away with it" and will probably continue to do so...and at least five women are remembered for 110 years now, with more on the way, as "whores" because their lives were "frozen" in that status by a murderer -- it infuriates me. When I first came to this website, I saw people flaming each other seemingly without the slightest thought to the hurt to the recipient or to the group. That's seemed to have faded from here, thank God. But what about the dead? Do we owe less caution to a Hutchinson, Abberline, Schwartz? It's almost a casual slander on the names and characters of the dead in this area of history when someone "proves" or shows "reasonable cause" to call one of the dead, Jack the Ripper. Before we start pointing fingers at the dead, I wish we'd stop and think what it is we're accusing these men of doing. Think of those bodies lying dead in the streets in 1888, and what was done to them. It should be no casual matter to accuse someone, even the dead, of those atrocities. And yes, I'm a self-righteous prig...but IOMO...It's Only My Opinion. Yaz
Author: The Viper Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 04:57 am
Hello Yaz. I feel another long post coming on in response to yours! Like you I haven't read much of Hinton's book yet, was just skimming it to check the details of his address. (Hadn't noticed any of the stuff about Abberline and JTR's supposed later identification). I have noticed a few points which both you and Hinton pick up on and would like to air them here. First, you both talk about Hutchinson's lack of money. Is this only because of his response to Mary Kelly asking him "Can you lend me sixpence?� (A great Victorian euphemism, surely). I have been wondering whether we might be taking his reply that he had spent his money too literally. Could he have had just enough money on him for lodging or food, but not the extra required for the purpose of sex/loans? Secondly is it definitely ascertained that Hutch spent the remainder of the night walking the streets? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, but have checked it in some of the best books again and can't find it. Maybe you can help me here? Thirdly, if I am right, the Victoria Home doesn't seem to be just another doss house, like those in Dorset Street and Flower & Dean Street. They demanded money for a bed up-front each night and evicted anybody who couldn't pay, (like Annie Chapman). Begg et al in the 'A To Z' state that Hutch had been unemployed for some weeks. Of course he could have been making money as a casual worker, or by some illegal means to pay his rent. But were the terms of payment different at places like the VH? (I'd really like to find out more about that place). On the general point you raise about writers making serious accusations against dead persons connected to the case... Yes I agree with you up to a point. But ultimately, since we are all still debating who JTR was, it could be argued that everybody who has ever written a book naming a candidate is guilty of this. Personally I think it is a question of degree. Has that writer done enough serious research and then asked enough searching questions to justify his or her accusations? In Hinton's case I don't know yet - his book is still in my in-tray. Realistically though, unless an author plumps for a candidate who is well known and middle-class enough to have a documented history; or was a serious criminal; or is a candidate of very long standing (say Druitt or Kosminski), I think there will always have to be speculative element now to fill the blanks. It's up to us to read what these writers have to say and critisise it; to ask some of the questions they didn't.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 08:48 am
Hey, Viper, I won't be long, I hope. Yes, some supposition must be made as I said before. The potential problem this causes is a matter of the speculation's quality and quantity. Consider Hutchinson. How many speculations do we have to make to get him to look even remotely suspicious? And, at least with Hinton's arguments in that one section, how valid or reasonable are those speculations? People should read the book for themselves and draw their own conclusions about the doubts I have regarding Hinton's speculation -- and should understand that Hinton does not disguise the fact he is speculating...a trait I admire. As to naming suspects in books or elsewhere, yes, everybody's guilty of the fault I outlined. When we can't even agree on who JtR killed, how he operated, whether he even existed...before we really know the evidence and ask questions about that evidence...it seems too early to start looking for a suspect. I'd rather question the evidence than a writer's theories about a suspect. Sugden and Begg and others provide a good historical overview, but they do not provide the all the detail and all the tangential evidence we need to ground ourselves in what happened in Whitechapel in 1888. But if they did provide this missing info, perhaps their books would be too long or not direct enough to satisfy their publishers. Yaz
Author: Christopher-Michael Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 02:24 pm
Yaz and Viper - I've looked through almost all of the major books on the case; the only reference I can find to Hutchinson wandering the streets that night is in Peter Underwood's "JTR: 100 Years of Mystery," where he says: "The damp and cold began to get to George and he left his lonely vigil and spent the rest of the night wandering the streets." (p. 29) Underwood gives no references, though, so where this comes from, other than Hutchinson's own statement of "I went away" cannot be said. According to Bruce Paley, Hutchinson's story was reported in the "Pall Mall Budget" and other papers, and he may have expanded to them. Not having the relevant material to hand, I cannot say. Hinton's book is certainly not the worst I have ever read, and in many parts I found it quite entertaining. Where he lost me was in using a short bit of Hutchinson's description of Kelly on November 9 as "a bit spreeish" as foundation for a theory that he was a stalker. Hinton tells us that MJK was roaring drunk the night she died, and Hutchinson's chivalrous description reveals a man determined not to see the bad in the object of his obsession. Rather too much frieght for those few words to carry, in my opinion, and the point in his otherwise interesting book where I had to cry halt. Christopher-Michael
Author: The Viper Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 04:24 pm
Hi, C-M. Thanks for checking that. I did read Underwood once, a long time ago, but never bought his book, so that may well have been where I read it. It seems to me from your work that we don't know for sure whether Hutchinson went home or walked the streets that night. Yaz, You have some interesting angles, as ever. Your points deserve a studied reply which unfortunately I can't prepare tonight. I'll either reply to this board or if events here move on, will take it off-line and e-mail you. Regards. V
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 06:07 pm
According to a published work I can't remember the title of at present, Hutchinson was totally out of money when he ran into Mary Jane, having spent it all on his trip to Romford that day. Exactly what he spent it on is unknown. This is why he couldn't offer any to Mary Jane when she asked, and why he walked past his doss house. After leaving Dorset Street, he wandered around a bit, then got a few hours' sleep by wrapping himself up in some tarpaulins he found in an alley. To everyone I owe e-mails: My apologies for not writing. I've been flat out with my work the last two weeks--business clients tend to panic at year-end time. Will be getting back to you all soon. David
Author: JackisBack Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 02:58 pm
what a shame this very well written and interesting discussion ended 9 months ago and wasn't continued or elaborated upon. I hope someone will re-ignite this area of examination and add more detail, like maybe Viper, Yazoo or Emma....or the whole gang..
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 04:49 am
Dear Jackisback Please see Hutchinson - Suspect board Bob Hinton
Author: Glenn Baron Sunday, 23 April 2000 - 06:02 pm
I've been wondering why Hutchinson was taking the Commercial St route towards Flower+Dean St? In doing so, I've also been presuming that the latter is where Hutchinson lived, not yet having received my copy of 'From Hell' which, it seems from earlier messages here, indicate that H lived on Commercial St. However, that he was at the Victoria Home in 1891 can in no way tell us where he was living in 1888. Moving around between short-term lets, spells in doss-houses etc seems to have been the norm, and H's occupation as nothing more noteworthy than 'labourer' suggests to me that he would have moved around as much, or even more, than most. The reason I made my presumption was the tone of his witness statement. "...I was coming by Thrawl St, Commercial St, and just before I got to Flower and Dean St I met...". This suggests to me, anyway, that F+D St was his destination, presumably where his home was at the time. If not, why phrase it that way? If he was headed for, say, Hanbury St, he would have said something like "..I was just before F+D St when I met.." without mentioning Thrawl St, no? Or "..I had just passed Thrawl St when..." The point is that he indicates his location perfectly with the reference to Thrawl St, so why mention F+D St? If this is the case, we have another problem with his testimony, namely : 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 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: Leanne Perry Sunday, 23 April 2000 - 06:35 pm
G'day, I haven't considered George Hutchinson much yet, either as a reliable witness or a suspect. But I read that just after he made his claim to the police, that guy that sold grapes and came forward after Strides murder, came forward again after Kelly's murder. I'll read Mr Hinton's book! Leanne!
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 05:47 am
I feel its a possibility that , if Hutchinson did make up his statement , it need not have been because he was guilty of the murder of Mary Kelly. He may have been providing a cover story for the real murderer although that would implicate him deeply in the crimes. Did Hutchinson know Barnett - now thats a question !
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 07:47 pm
Simon- I'm wondering about the Home Office offering "pardon to any accomplice" (sent out on Nov 10th, the day after Kelly's murder). I've always assumed this had something to do with there being the appearance of someone acting as a "lookout" at the murders of Stride and Kelly. Hutchinson hanging around at the scene of the crime is certainly suspicious. And what about the "Lipski!" fellow across the street at Stride's assault? Maybe this is too wild a leap? Is there another explanation for the offer of pardon? Was it just a futile political gesture? RJP
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 07:48 am
G'day RJP, EXCELLENT!!!!!!!Hutch didn't come forward until the 12th. The offer of a 'pardon to any accomplice', didn't go out until after Kelly's murder. It wasn't offered at the time of Stride's. But I did a story on how the whole Ripper scare affected Whitechapel at the time, and I remember researching/writing about how men commonly patrolled the streets at night, hoping to catch the killer in the act, even before any reward was offered. There is even a slim chance, that if a reward was offered to an accomplice, this may be a reason why the murders appeared to stop after Kelly's. Simon: Hutchinson obviously knew Kelly, because he 'occasionally gave her a shilling' and probably knew Barnett too. That's why, if his suspect was real, he looked at him 'stern'. I rekon the suspect thought: "••••, I hope he doesn't recognise me through this disguise'. I also believe that she was murdered around 7 or 8am. The killer knew that somebody would be around to try to collect rent soon, so he locked the door, by reaching through the window. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 05:18 pm
G'day, Last night in bed, I read through a booklet I got from Andy Alliffe, that first appeared in the 1920s and was written by someone who was there. It says that after the 'Double Event' and BEFORE Kelly's murder, The City authorities (seeing that the murder of Eddowes was committed in their bounds), at once 'offered a reward of 500 pounds. Two newspapers increased the reward by 400 pounds. The Vigilance Committee 'came forward with 'liberal offers'. The reward suggested by the Lord Mayor, increased to 2000 pounds. 'The members of the Stock Exchange, held a meeting and it was resolved by them that a very large sum would be given to the person or persons who succeeded in bringing to justice the Terror of Whitechapel. This was a sufficient inducement to set thousands of persons on the trail of the murderer'. All this was BEFORE Kelly's murder, but it was still AFTER the murder of Stride! It would also suggest that Hutchinson's description may have been exaggerated or at least affected by his eagerness to earn a reward! It could also mean that he knew the murderer, and because so much reward money was offered, he came forward to police, as a kind of warning. ie, "Give us a bit of money, or I'll go to the police and tell all." Leanne!
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 07:18 pm
Have you ever stood on a street corner for 45 minutes? It's a long time. It wouldn't be pleasant after a walk in the rain from Romford. And what was Hutchinson's motive for doing so? Mere curiosity? (I also think Glenn makes a good point about the strangeness of the route) IMHO, Hutchinson is either a stalker, a pimp, a liar, a publicity hound, or JTR. But which one? Also, is it only me or does anyone else think that Mary didn't mind playing with fire? She was shacked up with Barnett, but was still seeing Joseph Fleming, as well as apparently being friendly with Hutchinson and others. I like Viper's suggestion that the phrase "Can you lend me sixpence?" was a go at turning a trick with Hutch, but it disturbs me that there seems to be a wide grey border between who Kelly thought was a client and who she thought was an acquaintence or a paramour. But maybe I'm naive! RJP
Author: Glenn Baron Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 02:27 pm
Regarding H's trip to Romford, is there any actual evidence that he had just returned from there when he met Kelly? My reading of his statement leaves open the possibility that he had been there sometime recently and spent all his money, not necessarily that he had only just returned. Could be vital :> Cheers Glenn
Author: Diana Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 09:09 am
Could MJK have been scared of Jack, perhaps even thinking she was being stalked and could she have asked Hutchinson as a favor to follow her and her client and keep watch outside her door?
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 01 May 2000 - 08:03 am
G'day, Paley's book says, of Hutchinson: 'Just AFTER THE INQUEST CONCLUDED, a down-on-his-luck former groom called George Hutchinson CAME TO THE POLICE......' The 'A-Z' says: 'At 6.00pm, 12th Nov, AFTER KELLY'S INQUEST......' Tom Robinson, from his booklet written in the 1920's, containing eyewitness accounts says: 'AT KELLY"S INQUEST, probably the most interesting, if not the most important statement was made by George Hutchinson.....' So was he there or not???????????? Tom Robinson resided in Whitechapel during the later part of 1888 and has written from eyewitness notes. According to Robinson, Hutchinson said: 'As near as I can guess he was about 35 years of age and about 5'6" in height. His complexion was DARK and his moustache, which was turned up at the ends, was nearly black. He was dressed in a long black coat, trimmed with some kind of fur, and had on a white collar and black tie, in which was a horse-shoe pin. I also noticed he wore buttoned boots and dark spats, with light-coloured buttons, and a massive gold chain hung right across his vest. I couldn't help wondering why he should display such expensive jewellery in that neighbourhood, and IT WAS HIS BEING SO WELL DRESSED MADE ME FEEL SUSPICIOUS; but it never came into my head for a moment that he might be Jack the Ripper or any other murderer. When they reached the corner of Millers Court....................That is the last I saw of the deceased, as I WENT STRAIGHT OFF TO MY LODGINGS." (I put some of the type in CAPITALS myself). The next line begins with a question asked by the Coroner, so I'd say he was there: 'The Coroner: "Had this man short-whiskers, and was his face very stout and blotchy?" Witness: "No sir. He was clean-shaven except for a very heavy moustache, turned up at the corners, and his complexion, though DARK, was quite clear. He carried a small parcel in one of his hands and from his general appearance, and the way he talked, I took him to be a foreigner." If we believe the eyewitness acount: * Hutchinson was at the inquest. * The suspect had a dark complexion. * Hutchinson was on his way home, not stalking Kelly. * He was suspicious because the man was so well dressed. * He didn't hang around for 3 and a quarter hours but went "STRAIGHT OFF TO MY LODGINGS" Leanne!
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 01 May 2000 - 10:15 am
G'day Leanne ! Although I don't agree with your choice of suspect , I must say that you are posting some excellent and thought-provoking opinions on this case. This is another one. Has anyone got any more information on this ?