A Different Take

[Malcolm X]

Hutchinson's statement is not only riddled with faults ( his description of following Kelly) but it's also way too accurate in his description of the suspect, it's farcical for that time of night/ darkness/ drizzly rain etc etc... this has been discused so many times.

but there's something else far more subtle:- it's a very intense statement... he's really laying the blame on this suspect... painting him as a ``stereotypical theatrical bogeyman``...almost like the ``phantom of the opera``..or a ``Jeckyl and Hyde`` type...............sorry for my simplicity, but you know what i mean.... his statement is simply too loaded with suspicion... especially carrying the packet in his hand ``American cloth `` etc....no way, not that late at night, it's way too dark...

he's describing not a LA DE DA Jew.... but an evil person..it's like a gothic nightmare... ``he didn't look like somebody that could harm another man..plus he had a sullen look``.... Hutchinson is playing games with you, getting inside your head and it worked too...especially with the newspapers

there's something else not right in his statement that goes way beyond this... my guess is; he was the man seen outside Millers court and this spooked him.... does military in appearence mean... fit looking, strong and burly..or ``standing there dead still on guard duty...stalking``

Hutchinson was out late at night ( returning from Romford)... yea' sure

although the signatures match, this Hutchinson could still be the Ripper

you see, he messed up his description of following KELLY, got the pub name wrong etc etc, but this doesn't make sense from somebody that's supposedly so observant of his suspect..........i thus conclude:- he didn't see Kelly that night out on the streets, she didn't go out again.

or he lied about everything...but something tells me he was there.....because he came forward way too late, he would've gone to the police the next day... even if he was an attention seeker.... no no no, he went to the inquest to find out if anybody had seen him stalking outside MILLERS COURT, they had; so he went strait to the police

[Tom_Wescott]

I would consider all of them to be perfectly valid were in not for the fact that it doesn't satisfactorily explain the interesting coincidence of his coming forward with that publicity-seeking tale involving his presence outside a crime scene at 2:30 just after it was made public that someone really was seen standing outside the crime scene at 2:30am.

Hi Ben and everyone. Leon Goldstein also recognized himself in the press (re: Fanny Mortimer's account in Berner Street) and came forward to clear himself. The difference between Leon and George was that Leon was enjoying good circumstances and simply wanted to clear his name. Hutch may have felt he needed to go 'above and beyond' to clear his name or - more than likely - saw the opportunity to gain notoriety and make some money and decided to take it.

Why do I say make some money? Matthew Packer stated that the police had promised to pay him for his time (although he was angry when they didn't make fast with the money), so it stands to reason Hutch would have asked for and received the same promise when they occupied his time for days, walking him around the East End.

Speaking of Matthew Packer, let's not forget that he fabricated a s suspect - and far more successfully than Hutch did - yet that doesn't mean he killed Liz Stride.

Like you, I can see the merit in the view of Hutch as the murderer of Kelly, freaking out when he realizes he was spotted, and stepping forth to send suspicion in another direction. But before adopting this view, shouldn't there be at least ONE over-riding piece of evidence suggesting Hutch as the murderer? If there's not, then the 'Hutch as opportunist' slant would be more probable, would it not?

Also, anyone loitering around a spot for hours would HAVE to expect to be seen by many people. This is no big deal if he wasn't going to kill someone. But it WOULD be a big deal when someone did get killed and you realize your actions had put you in a suspicious spot. Again, like Leon Goldstein. My point is that had Hutch planned to kill Kelly, he would not have been seen loitering for an extended period of time and this whole argument we're now having would be mute because we'd have nothing to discuss.

Would you agree these are fair statements?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[FrankO]

So, you're leaning away from the most common reasons?

Hi Mike,

I don't care much about whether reasons are common or not, I just interpret the little information we have at our disposal and then form an opinion. If that means I'm leaning away from the most common reasons or opinions, so be it.

And you are leaning in the direction of something more nefarious, but less likely?

I think Hutchinson came forward because he feared being suspected. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was there because he had some criminal activity on his mind. Could be anything from Caz's innocent suggestion to the most nefarious, that Hutchinson was Kelly's murderer. Although I certainly don't discard the latter possibility, I think it was the former rather than the latter.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

All the best,
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi Tom,

When we only have the witnesses themselves to back up their story, we cant be sure of anything that they said. Fanny didnt see Schwartz or any of his alleged incident, Goldstein's Interpretor says he saw nothing...no-one witnesses the body first being discovered in Bucks Row, and in the case of Hutchinson, we have only his word that he was there at all....Sarah didnt get a chance to possibly ID the Wideawake Hat Man as the one who was calling himself Marys friend George on Monday.

I just posted this point on another thread...but George Hutchinson came in and claimed the best sighting of a probable killer of a Canonical victim and that he could recognize the man again......making him the single most valuable asset in the Ripper Investigation and the one figure that could help them arrest and convict the killer without having to catch him in the act or having physical evidence to support the claim....so, far exceeding what possibilities existed with Lawende based on his own words, ....but... Lawende was witnessed coming across Kate and her Sailor Man by his two chums, so at least we know what he claims was corroborated,..all 3 men saw the couple.

Hutchinson doesnt just give a story like Schwartz or Goldstein....Packer I leave alone because money would be such a powerful story stimulant, and his story has huge holes...Hutchinson comes in after the official business has already taken place to claim a title as Most Valuable Investigation Asset.

If the story was false as is believed...that would either make him a very dangerously disturbed individual, or someone with an agenda. Since he convinces what I assume must be an astute and professional man like Abberline....I think the "disturbed" angle may not be workable.

He creates a client seen with Mary after the evidence says she was already in her room...just like Schwartz's story brings in a suspect from outside the club. I think I may know why Schwartzs translated statement reads that way...what his agenda may have been...but Ill be damned if I can figure one reason for Hutchison that doesnt involve an agenda of some kind.

Cheers Tom, all.

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

A major difference seperating Leon Goldstein's activity on the night of a murder with that of Hutchinson is that "black bag man" simply passed the crime scene without exhibiting any interest in it, unlike the wideawake man, who seemed to be particularly fixated with the entrance to Miller's Court. This assumes an important resonance on two counts; firstly, Kelly was murdered probably an hour or so later within the very court he seemed to be monitering, and secondly, we know that other serial kilers have monitered their crime venues under similar circumstances before attacking, especially indoor locations. Robert Napper, Dennis Rader and Ted Bundy all spring to mind here.

On those grounds, I can't agree that the killer would not have allowed himself to be seen loitering in the vicinity of his crime, especially when there are very strong indications that the killer allowed himself to be seen with his victim at other crime scenes, and much closer to the accepted time of death - both of which entail a greater risk factor than simple loitering. Bear in mind that we only have it on his dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that he waited for as long as he claimed anyway.

Getting to the truly reductive essense of it, the man seen by Lewis has a strong chance of being Kelly's killer, and that same man has a strong chance of being Hutchinson, in my view. The activity reported by Lewis doesn't become any less suspicious simply because we have a good idea that the man in question may have been Hutchinson. If Lewis had reported a man passing on his way through Dorset Street, there would be far fewer grounds for suspicion, but as it happens, the wideawake man was behaving in a manner that appears suspicious in isolation from any question marks over his identity.

It is these reasons that propell Hutchinson's possibile complicity in the crimes to the top few reasonable explanations for his behaviour, or at the very least above that of the casual publicity seeker. Not that the latter is necessarily an unreasonable premise.

Out of interest, was there any confirmation behind Packer's claim that the police promised to pay him, or could that have been another invention on his part?

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Like you, I can see the merit in the view of Hutch as the murderer of Kelly, freaking out when he realizes he was spotted, and stepping forth to send suspicion in another direction. But before adopting this view, shouldn't there be at least ONE over-riding piece of evidence suggesting Hutch as the murderer? If there's not, then the 'Hutch as opportunist' slant would be more probable, would it not?

Also, anyone loitering around a spot for hours would HAVE to expect to be seen by many people. This is no big deal if he wasn't going to kill someone. But it WOULD be a big deal when someone did get killed and you realize your actions had put you in a suspicious spot. Again, like Leon Goldstein. My point is that had Hutch planned to kill Kelly, he would not have been seen loitering for an extended period of time and this whole argument we're now having would be mute because we'd have nothing to discuss.

Would you agree these are fair statements?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yes, but it depends how he was intending to kill KELLY ( if he did kill her)
because this might mean that he has to wait outside for ages, for her light to go out / or a client to leave ...he has to be sure that she's at home and hasn't gone out again and more importantly that she's fallen asleep... thus he cant be sure if he leaves the area, he has to wait outside

but i do admit that Hutchinson could quite easily be innocent/ attention seeker...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I hear what you're saying, but in the end, all Prater witnessed and all Hutch admits to is him loitering around an open street near a pretty whore's house and a pub. Such spots had men loitering around them 24/7. I don't see how this man Prater saw simply standing about has such a strong chance of being Kelly's killer. On any other night, you'd see men loitering around the same spot.

Michael,

I agree that we can rule out any derangement on Hutch's part as playing a motive in his fabricating the story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

it's just so damn suspicious... my guess is that KELLY didn't go out again, this means the killer could've been Blotchy face..or he left well before 3am ...after she finished singing, but before her light went out

it's one of two things........ Kelly was in bed with BLOTCHY FACE after her light was seen to be out, or the killer broke in at 3am.

i would state one of these as a FACT, but which one?

Hutchinson is the ideal candidate for a 3am break in, he's stalked her exactly as required.. the times he mentions are spot on, but BLOTCHY face was actually seen going in, he is also a prime suspect.

now HUTCHINSON goes way overboard shifting the blame to a JEW, he did not see those two outside........almost definitely a fact! he either made it all up as an attention seeker, or he's our man.

which is it... well, i aint sure.... blotchy face fits other suspect descriptions give or take 60% ...yea, but so does HUTCH..

do you think she slept with Blotchy face?

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Of interest to us as far as Mr. Wideawake's behaviour is concerned is not his loitering so much as his reported interest in what would later become a crime scene; "watching or waiting for someone" can be compared to other serial offenders who opted for a similar strategy of prior surveillance. Someone killed her, and given the paucity of reliable sightings, Wideawake must be considered a viable suspect in Kelly's death, in my view.

Hi Mike,

If you mean outward and visible signs of mental disturbance, yes, I'd agree that the police would have picked up on it, so no, it's unlikely that he conveyed any.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben,

I hear what you're saying, but in the end, all Prater witnessed and all Hutch admits to is him loitering around an open street near a pretty whore's house and a pub. Such spots had men loitering around them 24/7. I don't see how this man Prater saw simply standing about has such a strong chance of being Kelly's killer. On any other night, you'd see men loitering around the same spot.


Tom Wescott

no, he just so happens to be loitering about for far too long, outside of the room of the Ripper's next victim, with the timing perfect for a 4am break in ``oh muder`` .........THIS IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS

he left at 3am... when her light was finally out, or had been out for the previous 15 mins, we cant be sure when her light went out.. but oh my God, he looks like a classic stalker.

but is this so...i'm not sure, but dont rule him out quite so easily

[Malcolm X]

Hi Tom,



If the story was false as is believed...that would either make him a very dangerously disturbed individual, or someone with an agenda. Since he convinces what I assume must be an astute and professional man like Abberline....I think the "disturbed" angle may not be workable.

He creates a client seen with Mary after the evidence says she was already in her room...

Cheers Tom, all.

yes, it could be purely Anti- Semetic only.... but then again, Dutfields yard and ``the jews are the men`` looks exactly the same too

[Tom_Wescott]

but is this so...i'm not sure, but dont rule him out quite so easily

I would caution not to rule him IN too easily, either. His mere loitering has caused many believe to believe wholeheartedly he is the Ripper, and I'm not sure I get that. It would help immensely if we had more ironclad info about Hutch's life before and after November, 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

I agree that more biographical material would be welcomed. Just to clarify, though, the suspicions that have been levelled against Hutchinson have a good deal more to do with mere loitering, not that many other suspects have evidence of proximity to (let alone interest in) a crime scene against them. Some can't even be placed in London at the appropriate time.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

not that many other suspects have evidence of proximity to (let alone interest in) a crime scene against them.

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. To take him serious as a suspect, there should be other indicators of guilt, such as a history of abusing women, or a contemporary pointing the finger of guilt at him, or something. And that's all lacking with Hutch. What we have instead are a bunch of cops who seem to like him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. To take him serious as a suspect, there should be other indicators of guilt, such as a history of abusing women, or a contemporary pointing the finger of guilt at him, or something. And that's all lacking with Hutch. What we have instead are a bunch of cops who seem to like him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,
of course you're right...but if Hutch had a "history of abusing women", etc, he wouldn't have come forward, I guess (whether he would have done so, perhaps, with an alias... )
And unfortunately, we know him only because he decided to go to the police one Monday evening, where he signed his statement "George Hutchinson".

Amitiés,
David