Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by Herlock Sholmes 5 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (11 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:30 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
And you know he didn't give Abberline an alibi in that interrogation, ...because?
Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-06-2017, 05:50 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.
But haven't "we", you & me, both agreed, Hutch was never a suspect, only a witness?

Since when does a witness need an alibi? obviously, the subject never came up.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:22 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
HI Caz

basically yes, he had to account for why he was there.
Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.

Quote:
either or Caz, it really dosnt matter. whether he was just an attention seeker or her killer, he engaged in stalking behavior.
What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 12-07-2017 at 04:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:44 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
You were addressing Abby's post, Michael, not mine. I don't really buy the 'stalker' accusation. We only have Hutch's own words for what he was doing, and the police didn't appear to get the impression that he had been indulging in stalking behaviour and was now choosing to volunteer that information.

Love,

Caz
X
My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:50 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.



What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didnít need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:27 AM
Chava Chava is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,077
Default

Admittedly I havenít looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops. Itís not like they didnít know who he was or what he claimed, but they didnít try and get a story. Clearly The Daily Telegraph didnít believe him as they point out the dissimilarity between Astrakhan Man and the other descriptions and cast some shade there. Given he was Ďthe last person to see Mary Jane Kelly aliveí Iíd have thought some enterprising journo would have pitched him a few quid for a story. Especially since he hadnít given it all up for free at the inquest as Mary Ann Cox had. I do find this strange. I think Abberline might have changed his mind re Hutchís reliability and let the press know that.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-07-2017, 03:35 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava View Post
Admittedly I havenít looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops.
Not sure what you mean here, have you read this interview?
(nearly half way down the page)
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881114.html

The interview was taken by the Central News, and various dailies published this interview - the above being only one example.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old Yesterday, 07:39 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.
Hi Michael,

But Hutch wasn't 'just keeping an eye on' Kelly, according to his own account. Very far from it. His eye was wholly kept on the man she had picked up with, according to his claimed ability to describe him down to the last tiny detail. His excuse for waiting 45 minutes in the vicinity was not to keep an eye on Kelly at all, but to see the man again, for no stated reason apart from idle curiosity. Hutch said he gave up waiting and walked off, apparently with no desire to see how Kelly was doing. In fact he claimed afterwards to have had no suspicions that the man might pose any danger to Kelly. Whether the man had emerged or not, Hutch would have needed to go into that room himself in order to 'keep an eye on' Kelly and see if she was sleeping peacefully, in danger of choking on her vomit or ripped up to shreds.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old Yesterday, 07:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didn’t need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.
Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : Yesterday at 07:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old Yesterday, 08:30 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X
Thanks Caz
yes, I agree, and especially if he was the killer! But I don't see it as ruling him out whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer.

gun to head, I would say more than likely he was just an attention seeker. But I would also say Aman story was a lie.

There are multiple scenarios that could have happened, but to me the most likely is that Hutch was looking for a place to crash and/or hook up with mary, never actually saw her that night, and waited/watched for her (this is where Lewis saw him) either for her to be finished with her guest (probably Blotchy) or less likely, if not home, for her return.

at the bottom of the list of likelihood scenarios, for me, is that his story was pretty much accurate as told, especially the Aman story. that part IMHO is a lie.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.