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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Elamarna 9 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Local killer for local people................ - by Michael W Richards 16 minutes ago.
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - by Robert 48 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Rainbow 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - by John Malcolm 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by GUT 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (14 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - (8 posts)
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Recent 'Tour' - (5 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
  #1171  
Old Yesterday, 11:06 AM
andy1867 andy1867 is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
But in what way does the description he gave match previous "suspicious" characters?




And then add details that appear nowhere else?
I thought the idea was to describe someone who has already been described (as Andy said), but then you add those details that no-one else saw. Which pulls the rug right out from Andy's argument.
So now the new suspect looks nothing like previous "well-dressed men".

You can't have it both ways guy's. Hutch is either copying previous 'descriptions', or he's making one up to look different.
Which is it?
Hi Wickerman
sorry for the tardy reply...
I was referring to several reports in the press that that a "Well dressed man" had been seen..I wasn't referring to the tie pin, gaiters fob watch etc..
Say for instance I asked someone what a "Well dressed man" may look like in 1888...someone might reply
"Astrakan collar and cuffs, gold watch and tie pin, buttoned down gaiters...etc"
So...You can put the two together,maybe tenously.
I'm not particularly worried about the "rug being pulled from under my argument" although I don't see it as an "Argument"..I was simply asking questions and discussing it...although I realise that "Argument" oft times becomes the default position on these boards...
Thanks for your well thought out replies though..
Andy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old Yesterday, 12:59 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
Hi Jon,

I have to admit that I had not been following the whole discussion and, therefore, had missed the point you were trying to get to. Apologies.
Thankyou for that Frank.
We have exchanged views before and I was surprised by the position you took, I though it was out of character for you. So, the above explains it all.

Quote:
However, there’s a number of things in his (police and newspaper) story and his coming forward that makes me quite cautious putting stock in his story.
I agree, though I am less concerned about his press interview. That may have been embellished to some degree.

I'm not so much a defender of Hutchinson, though I may come across as such. What interests me are the baseless arguments that are invented to incriminate him. They seem to originate more from desperation than any interest in factual research.

When anyone comes up with a factual argument against him I will be the first to accept it.
I do agree that there are details in his story where he may have lied. First is his name, that may not be true.
Next is the reason he did not give 6d to Kelly, that reason may have been a lie, because he must have had money to get into some lodgings in the morning.
He may not have walked about all night either, more likely slept in some doorway at some point. But to admit that is admitting vagrancy, so he has a reason to lie there.

I have yet to hear a rational and tangible criticism of his story where it may be demonstrated that he lied to the degree that such a lie incriminates him in this crime in some way.
Most, if not all those who take issue with the description he gave are layperson's, or at least not occupied in a professional capacity to have dealt with witness statements on a regular basis.
So they convince themselves with uninformed opinions, while objecting to informed opinion, which to my mind means they have no basis for their objections.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old Yesterday, 01:36 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy1867 View Post
Hi Wickerman
sorry for the tardy reply...
I was referring to several reports in the press that that a "Well dressed man" had been seen..I wasn't referring to the tie pin, gaiters fob watch etc..
Say for instance I asked someone what a "Well dressed man" may look like in 1888...someone might reply
"Astrakan collar and cuffs, gold watch and tie pin, buttoned down gaiters...etc"
So...You can put the two together,maybe tenously.
I'm not particularly worried about the "rug being pulled from under my argument" although I don't see it as an "Argument"..I was simply asking questions and discussing it...although I realise that "Argument" oft times becomes the default position on these boards...
Thanks for your well thought out replies though..
Andy
Hi Andy.

Yes, there are several "well-dressed", or "respectably dressed", men seen by witnesses. Hutch didn't need to look through the papers to find that, he could dream up that little detail, "hey, I saw a well-dressed man that morning...", all by himself.
I wouldn't need newspaper stories to come up with that line so neither would Hutchinson, in my view.

What may be important is if Hutch used some specific detail in his description, that could have been obtained from papers over that weekend in association with the victim.
A simple comparison can demonstrate that this is actually not the case, so there is no basis for that argument.

If Hutch was intent on hi-jacking a previous suspect description to distract from himself, he needs something specific, like "the black bag", or a silk top-hat, or speckled trousers, but "the black bag" stands head and shoulders above any other detail in this case.
He didn't use it, in my view because, he didn't look to the press for inspiration, he didn't need to. He described what he saw, he was not making anything up.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old Yesterday, 02:30 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

I have yet to hear a rational and tangible criticism of his story where it may be demonstrated that he lied to the degree that such a lie incriminates him in this crime in some way.
If all you are looking at doing is protecting Hutchinson from unfair accusations that implicate him in this murder, you need not waste so much typing Jon. I for one only believe that Hutchinsons reason for coming forward at all 4 days late with a meticulous description that surely would have aided detectives 4 days earlier makes this particular tangent in the case somewhat interesting.

I also believe that he fabricated all of the story, and the "suspect" details, and his alleged friendship with Mary Kelly. His delay and his obvious fantasy sequence proves that last point was a lie succinctly.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old Yesterday, 03:50 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,290
Default

I have to agree with Wickerman. It doesn't necessarily follow that if it can be shown that Hutch was a liar then it proves that he was involved in Mary's killing. That only makes him out to be a liar.

And then again we have the issue of police stupidity and ineptness. If his story was so obviously a lie why was that not apparent to the police? It seems to me that the whole lying part is a moot point. He may or may not have lied but the police (unless they were complete buffoons) apparently concluded that he was not involved in the murder regardless of his statements and actions.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,130
Default

Perhaps Hutchinson was part of a police cover up.
__________________
My name is Dave not Deb
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 03:06 AM.


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