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:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 42 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by DJA 49 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by DirectorDave 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - by John Wheat 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (15 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (9 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (2 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
  #1  
Old 11-13-2017, 01:55 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 368
Default Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.
In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.Besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act, perjury was confined to the courts (Perjury Act 1728).

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him 2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.
__________________
Clearly the first human laws spawned organized religion's morality - from which it only copied,ex. you cannot kill,
steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills).
M. Pacana

Last edited by Varqm : 11-13-2017 at 02:09 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:07 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act,perjury was confined to the courts.

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him 2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.
well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.
__________________
"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
  #3  
Old 11-13-2017, 02:35 PM
MysterySinger MysterySinger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 419
Default

He probably wanted an association with the crimes. Some people do.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2017, 03:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:52 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.

Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.
__________________
Clearly the first human laws spawned organized religion's morality - from which it only copied,ex. you cannot kill,
steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2017, 01:29 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.
In what way could it help?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-30-2017, 05:32 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.
That's uncharacteristically nave from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone. What he does do is waits all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and until after 5pm on Monday. After the Inquest. With what can only be described as the most meticulously detailed description of someone with a soon to be victim.

I think why George came forward might be because he knew someone saw him there and he needed to explain why he was seen loitering, or, he wasn't there at all but was claiming to be that man because a simple explanation was needed for that individual. It was Wideawake Man that was arguably the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon. Converting someone seen suspiciously loitering to a friend watching out for a friend is really quite clever. I recall that both he and Daniel Barnett resided at The Victorian Home at that time, and that Daniel was seen out with Mary on the Tuesday or Wednesday night preceding. So many coincidences in some of these cases, tangential links to other key people or residences, overlapping characters.

Wonder who the other Joe was that Mary was seeing? Interesting side bit along the overlapping characters vein...in the Stride case its documented that Louis said he and "Issac[s]" went out to look for help, but its also on record that Issac Kozedbrodski stated that he was sent out alone by Louis...at around 12:45..but that another debate. Wonder if it could have actually been Joseph Issacs, the same guy who moved around the corner from Mary just after Barnett moved out, and abandoned his dwellings unexpectedly the night she was killed?
__________________
Michael Richards

Last edited by Michael W Richards : 11-30-2017 at 05:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-30-2017, 02:53 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
That's uncharacteristically nave from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone......
I can take the criticism Michael, thats ok. What I would like you to do though, is offer a few of those reason's why G. H. would believe he was the last person to see Kelly in the company of someone 6-7 hours before it was believed she was murdered.

Just a few, Michael. Thanks.

If you recall, Swanson wasn't sold on the idea that Broad Shoulder Man had killed Stride, because there was 15 minutes that could not be accounted for.
Only 15 minutes Michael, 15 minutes is sufficient for the whole scene to change - and we are talking here about 6-7 hours!!!
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 11-30-2017 at 02:56 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:46 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.
What was the reason?
__________________
Clearly the first human laws spawned organized religion's morality - from which it only copied,ex. you cannot kill,
steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2017, 12:32 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
What was the reason?
Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.
__________________
"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 02:08 AM.


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