PDA

View Full Version : A theory on GH for JtR


Abby Normal
10-22-2010, 10:00 PM
I have a theory on George Hutchinson for being JtR. Its more of a “connect the dots” idea then bringing up anything new. Two things jumped out at me right from the start about GH and these two things taken together really put up the red flag about him for me initially. First, is the highly improbable detailed description of A-man along with fact he said he was Jewish looking. Secondly, is his admission of standing, waiting outside Millers Court the night of MK’s murder.

Later, upon learning about other facts of the case, which I will get into as I explain what I think might have happened, I began to think of the coincidences and how they might be connected.
Let me just say, that I don’t think that GH was definitely JtR, but that he, along with a handful of other candidates, makes a viable suspect. If he was JtR, then my idea goes like this:

JtR kills his first victims (Tabram perhaps, Nichols, Chapman)without getting caught but also without being seen-or seen well. It is the night of the double event where, for the first time, in his mind witnesses get a good look at him. With a reluctant Stride, who is taking longer for him to manipulate into a secluded area, he is perhaps seen by several witnesses. However, it is the last of these, Israel Schwartz, that’s the one that makes an impression in JtR’s mind. He is the witness that not only gets the first real good look at him, but actually sees him in a very incriminating situation-i.e-attacking (or beginning to attack) a victim. JtR shouts “Lipski” to scare away the Jewish looking Schwartz and continues his attack on Stride. Then, after being interrupted (twice) with Stride and not being able to fulfill his true desire to mutilate and take organs, he quickly leaves that “hot” area in search of another victim.

He finds another victim in Eddowes and finally has his way with her, but once again, not without being seen by three witnesses together, and most importantly of the three, Joseph Lawende. After these events and once he is done with Eddowes, JtR thinks could these witnesses be his downfall in the near future? At this point he decides he needs to do something to throw off the police who may very well be soon getting his description from these witnesses. So he writes the GSG implicating Jews and leaves a portion of Stride’s bloody apron.

That night, with Stride, he is seen by the Jewish looking Schwartz and then later by Lawende and his companions. Knowing he has been seen well, by not one, but possibly two to four Jews, JtR decides to use them as the scapegoat (false) suspect. He probably knows of the prevailing thought in the public/police/press that a Jew may be responsible for the first murders and along with perhaps being angry by being interrupted by them (and knowing, obviously, that he himself is not Jewish) he uses them as a very convenient way to point the way away from himself.

On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead.

And who is GH’s “suspect”? a Jew. To me the implication of a Jew in the GSG, the shouting of Lipski and then the direct description of a Jew by a “witness” is the connection to me that may all point back to GH as being the killer. A man with the confidence (arrogance), risk taking and manipulative prowess to pull off a night like the double event is the same kind of man who could go to the police with the A-man story. And we never hear from him again.

“The greatest trick the devil ever played on man, was to convince him he doesn’t exist.”

Robert
10-22-2010, 10:22 PM
But Abby, if JTR wanted to frame the Jews, one idea would be to draw a star of David in blood on the partition wall of Number 13. So why didn't he?

Ben
10-22-2010, 10:46 PM
Hi Abby,

I think your theory has a great deal going for it. Indeed, I have an article in the pipeline that argues along these lines.

Various authors and historians such as Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland have argued that the killer sought to fuel the widespread suspicions against the Jewish community whenever an opportunity presented itself to do so, and I'm in full in agreement with them.

Best regards,
Ben

Abby Normal
10-22-2010, 11:22 PM
Hi Abby,

I think your theory has a great deal going for it. Indeed, I have an article in the pipeline that argues along these lines.

Various authors and historians such as Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland have argued that the killer sought to fuel the widespread suspicions against the Jewish community whenever an opportunity presented itself to do so, and I'm in full in agreement with them.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben Thanks. I look forward to reading your article.

richardnunweek
10-22-2010, 11:26 PM
Hi Abby,
Nothing wrong with the theory, but who is the George Hutchinson you are accusing , Topping , or someone that is unknown to all of us.?
If its the latter fine... but Regs [ proven] father GWTH, was not one of the most bloodthirsty monsters of all time... was he? no wonder JD was reluctant to speak futher.
The police were no fools, even though somewhat primitive by modern methods, but Barnett satisfied the police, so you can be absolutely certain a man that puts himself at the scene of the crime, on the relevant date /time, would have had to convince them. of his innocence, before Abberline believed him, and encouraged him to help in their investigations.
But being a theorist myself , I respect your scenerio..
Regards Richard.

Abby Normal
10-22-2010, 11:29 PM
But Abby, if JTR wanted to frame the Jews, one idea would be to draw a star of David in blood on the partition wall of Number 13. So why didn't he?

Hi Robert
That would have been one way-perhaps he didn't think of it.

There could have been many ways to do it, including the ways in which he did (in my opinion, of course).

Fisherman
10-23-2010, 12:08 AM
Abby Normal:

"That would have been one way-perhaps he didn't think of it."
I have to say I´m with Robert here. I find it utterly strange that he did not come to think one one single, unmistakeable way of saying "The jews did it".

There. I did it. So why couldn´t he?

The best,
Fisherman

Abby Normal
10-23-2010, 08:38 AM
Abby Normal:

"That would have been one way-perhaps he didn't think of it."
I have to say I´m with Robert here. I find it utterly strange that he did not come to think one one single, unmistakeable way of saying "The jews did it".

There. I did it. So why couldn´t he?

The best,
Fisherman

He did. twice. Fish.

Rubyretro
10-23-2010, 10:13 AM
I totally agree with your theory, Abby. Indeed, I think that you can go further -if you look at the murder sites on the night of the Double Event,
you may ask why JTR would choose Berner Street, which was not the lonliest spot nor with the most prostitutes, and why Dutfield's yard right next to club full of people? Unless you think (like me), that the site was targetted precisely because it was in proximity to a Jewish/socialist club.

You can ask why did the killer then go to Mitre Square in the city of London,
and outside his 'area'...except that it was in the heavily Jewish ward of Portsoken, in proximity to an important synagogue and on the night of another Jewish club meeting (from which Lawende and others were coming, passing the passage, where Eddowes was supposedly seen).

The GSG was found in a builing mainly inhabited by Jews, and on a route back from Mitre Square to the Victoria home.

Bucks Row and Hanbury street pose more questions, but they both have Jewish/socialist links (I won't expand here)-at any rate, the anti-Jewish fever was already running high after these murders, and before Berner Street, so I think that these locations mean't something at the time.

I am interested in the dates for the murders too...I would expect Club meetings to be held on weekends, once a month ? (speculation).

(By the way, did you try googling 'Hamsa Horseshoe', and see the Jewish charms ? )

Abby Normal
10-25-2010, 04:49 PM
Hi Abby,
Nothing wrong with the theory, but who is the George Hutchinson you are accusing , Topping , or someone that is unknown to all of us.?
If its the latter fine... but Regs [ proven] father GWTH, was not one of the most bloodthirsty monsters of all time... was he? no wonder JD was reluctant to speak futher.
The police were no fools, even though somewhat primitive by modern methods, but Barnett satisfied the police, so you can be absolutely certain a man that puts himself at the scene of the crime, on the relevant date /time, would have had to convince them. of his innocence, before Abberline believed him, and encouraged him to help in their investigations.
But being a theorist myself , I respect your scenerio..
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
Thanks for the response.
I guess in my mind, it really doesn't matter. If its "unknown GH"-well then its unknown GH. If its Toppy, then obviously he kept it secret from his family as some serial killers have been known to do. I will say that, it does kind of surprise me that if GH and Toppy are one in the same and Toppy was just a witness(and not the killer), that he did not speak of it more with his family. But, If he was the killer, it seems to me that he would be reluctant to talk to his family about it, even in his "witness" guise.

Abby Normal
10-25-2010, 04:56 PM
I totally agree with your theory, Abby. Indeed, I think that you can go further -if you look at the murder sites on the night of the Double Event,
you may ask why JTR would choose Berner Street, which was not the lonliest spot nor with the most prostitutes, and why Dutfield's yard right next to club full of people? Unless you think (like me), that the site was targetted precisely because it was in proximity to a Jewish/socialist club.

You can ask why did the killer then go to Mitre Square in the city of London,
and outside his 'area'...except that it was in the heavily Jewish ward of Portsoken, in proximity to an important synagogue and on the night of another Jewish club meeting (from which Lawende and others were coming, passing the passage, where Eddowes was supposedly seen).

The GSG was found in a builing mainly inhabited by Jews, and on a route back from Mitre Square to the Victoria home.

Bucks Row and Hanbury street pose more questions, but they both have Jewish/socialist links (I won't expand here)-at any rate, the anti-Jewish fever was already running high after these murders, and before Berner Street, so I think that these locations mean't something at the time.

I am interested in the dates for the murders too...I would expect Club meetings to be held on weekends, once a month ? (speculation).

(By the way, did you try googling 'Hamsa Horseshoe', and see the Jewish charms ? )

Hi Ruby
I guess I would not go that far. I know your ideas, but I lean more towards JtR killing them where the opportunity arose (not targetting specifically jewish areas) and then later blaming jews later after he knew he was seen by a jew(s). i have to admit though I agree with your idea that A-man's apearance was inspired in GH's mind by someone he already knew and thus the perfect fake jewish "suspect" to give to police.

Fisherman
10-25-2010, 05:05 PM
Abby Normal:

"He did. twice. Fish."

With respect, Abby, he did no such thing. He relied on somebody making the interpretation for him, and 122 years down the line, we are still nowhere near any consensus on the Jew issue - in spite of the fact that he could have put it beyond doubt, had he wanted to.

The best,
Fisherman

Abby Normal
10-25-2010, 05:21 PM
Abby Normal:

"He did. twice. Fish."

With respect, Abby, he did no such thing. He relied on somebody making the interpretation for him, and 122 years down the line, we are still nowhere near any consensus on the Jew issue - in spite of the fact that he could have put it beyond doubt, had he wanted to.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish
The police at the time thought the GSG was so incriminating that they had it removed. GH told police the suspect was Jewish looking.

Also,Anything so obvious and "put it beyond doubt" as "The Jews did it" or the like,I think would make people think that it was obviously a non Jew trying to blame a jew. He was trying to throw off the police, who were no dummies, so perhaps he knew he needed to have a certain degree of subtlety.

Fisherman
10-25-2010, 05:39 PM
Abby Normal:

"The police at the time thought the GSG was so incriminating that they had it removed. GH told police the suspect was Jewish looking.
Also,Anything so obvious and "put it beyond doubt" as "The Jews did it" or the like,I think would make people think that it was obviously a non Jew trying to blame a jew. He was trying to throw off the police, who were no dummies, so perhaps he knew he needed to have a certain degree of subtlety."

Subtlety? "The jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"? Subtle? Come on, Abby ...

And yes the police erased it - but with no confirmation about what had been meant and who had written it, right? Their concern was not to fuel the already existing tensions that were there long before the GSG.

Maybe your suggestion has merit. Maybe not. I´ll be damned if I can tell, so I opt for guessing. Thereby I join forces with each and every voice that has had something to say on this errand for more than a hundred years.

The best
Fisherman

Abby Normal
10-25-2010, 06:04 PM
Abby Normal:

"The police at the time thought the GSG was so incriminating that they had it removed. GH told police the suspect was Jewish looking.
Also,Anything so obvious and "put it beyond doubt" as "The Jews did it" or the like,I think would make people think that it was obviously a non Jew trying to blame a jew. He was trying to throw off the police, who were no dummies, so perhaps he knew he needed to have a certain degree of subtlety."

Subtlety? "The jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"? Subtle? Come on, Abby ...

And yes the police erased it - but with no confirmation about what had been meant and who had written it, right? Their concern was not to fuel the already existing tensions that were there long before the GSG.

Maybe your suggestion has merit. Maybe not. I´ll be damned if I can tell, so I opt for guessing. Thereby I join forces with each and every voice that has had something to say on this errand for more than a hundred years.

The best
Fisherman

Hi Fish

Subtlety? "The jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"? Subtle? Come on, Abby ...


Its a lot more subtle than "the jews did it", which you suggested, isn't it?

so I opt for guessing. Thereby I join forces with each and every voice that has had something to say on this errand for more than a hundred years.

As do i Fish. And I would also empahasize the word "guessing" in agreeing with your statement, as obviously thats all I am doing my little theory here. : )

Fisherman
10-25-2010, 07:27 PM
Abby Normal:

"Its a lot more subtle than "the jews did it", which you suggested, isn't it?"

That´s just the problem, Abby - we don´t know if it is subtle. Or dimwitted. Do we? For all we know it could be a lot less subtle that "The jews did it", depending on what it means. Which brings us back to the guessing again ... :1tongue:

The best,
Fisherman

Scott Nelson
10-25-2010, 08:59 PM
Then why keep discussing it?

Fisherman
10-25-2010, 09:59 PM
Because I have one wiew and Abby another. Unless you noticed, Scott, that is the normal fertilizer for discussions :argue:

If you can contribute a third wiew, by all means join in!

The best,
Fisherman

Rubyretro
10-25-2010, 11:48 PM
Well personally I don't think JtR wrote the GSG.

I don't think that he had a light with him, and it must have been pitch black inside that doorway.

I can't see him scrabbling about with a bit of chalk, nor being a habitual writer
(I can't imagine him labouriously spelling out words or forming letters).

I CAN imagine that he wanted to get Kate's apron off his person very quickly
(unlike a kidney, there could be no doubt from where it came). So, I think that he just chucked it in the doorway sharpish.

Still, if it was GH the culprit, then it was on the way between Mitre Square and the Victoria Home. The building was one that GH would know, being a
stone's throw from his lodgings. It was a building mainly inhabited by Jews -
graffitti or not, it would be a pretty incendary thing for the apron bit to be found there.

It is possible that he had written the graffitti another time -or it's possible that he had seen it there. It's also possible that it was just the building that he targetted and not the graffitti : Who knows ?

Whatever it 'mean't' is not as important as all that -it had the words 'Juwes' and 'blame' in the sentence..that was provocative enough.

Fleetwood Mac
10-25-2010, 11:58 PM
I have a theory on George Hutchinson for being JtR. Its more of a “connect the dots” idea then bringing up anything new. Two things jumped out at me right from the start about GH and these two things taken together really put up the red flag about him for me initially. First, is the highly improbable detailed description of A-man along with fact he said he was Jewish looking. Secondly, is his admission of standing, waiting outside Millers Court the night of MK’s murder.

Later, upon learning about other facts of the case, which I will get into as I explain what I think might have happened, I began to think of the coincidences and how they might be connected.
Let me just say, that I don’t think that GH was definitely JtR, but that he, along with a handful of other candidates, makes a viable suspect. If he was JtR, then my idea goes like this:

JtR kills his first victims (Tabram perhaps, Nichols, Chapman)without getting caught but also without being seen-or seen well. It is the night of the double event where, for the first time, in his mind witnesses get a good look at him. With a reluctant Stride, who is taking longer for him to manipulate into a secluded area, he is perhaps seen by several witnesses. However, it is the last of these, Israel Schwartz, that’s the one that makes an impression in JtR’s mind. He is the witness that not only gets the first real good look at him, but actually sees him in a very incriminating situation-i.e-attacking (or beginning to attack) a victim. JtR shouts “Lipski” to scare away the Jewish looking Schwartz and continues his attack on Stride. Then, after being interrupted (twice) with Stride and not being able to fulfill his true desire to mutilate and take organs, he quickly leaves that “hot” area in search of another victim.

He finds another victim in Eddowes and finally has his way with her, but once again, not without being seen by three witnesses together, and most importantly of the three, Joseph Lawende. After these events and once he is done with Eddowes, JtR thinks could these witnesses be his downfall in the near future? At this point he decides he needs to do something to throw off the police who may very well be soon getting his description from these witnesses. So he writes the GSG implicating Jews and leaves a portion of Stride’s bloody apron.

That night, with Stride, he is seen by the Jewish looking Schwartz and then later by Lawende and his companions. Knowing he has been seen well, by not one, but possibly two to four Jews, JtR decides to use them as the scapegoat (false) suspect. He probably knows of the prevailing thought in the public/police/press that a Jew may be responsible for the first murders and along with perhaps being angry by being interrupted by them (and knowing, obviously, that he himself is not Jewish) he uses them as a very convenient way to point the way away from himself.

On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead.

And who is GH’s “suspect”? a Jew. To me the implication of a Jew in the GSG, the shouting of Lipski and then the direct description of a Jew by a “witness” is the connection to me that may all point back to GH as being the killer. A man with the confidence (arrogance), risk taking and manipulative prowess to pull off a night like the double event is the same kind of man who could go to the police with the A-man story. And we never hear from him again.

“The greatest trick the devil ever played on man, was to convince him he doesn’t exist.”

Hi Abby.....

'Fraid a couple of holes in the theory....

If he is JTR and he thinks he's been spotted by Lawende....then why on earth would he turn up at the police station whereupon he may have been stuck in a line up to be picked out by Lawende?

Say the grafitti incriminated a Jew....then what Hutchinson is asking the police to believe is that JTR the Jew stopped in the middle of the street to tell the world he's a Jew......surely inconceivable....surely no one is that stupid that they believe the police would believe that? If he really wanted to incriminate a Jew I'm sure he could have found a much better way of doing it with a few seconds thought.....

I'll pass it on it Abby....and personally think it's one of the weakest theories around....no offence intended of course.....I mean the general Hutch = JTR idea.

The best bet is that he was a crank.....possibly motivated by money.

Rubyretro
10-26-2010, 12:35 AM
If he is JTR and he thinks he's been spotted by Lawende....then why on earth would he turn up at the police station whereupon he may have been stuck in a line up to be picked out by Lawende?

I know that your reply is to Abby, Fleetwood, but since I'm 'online' at the same time as you and read it first...I can't resist replying.

First of all there is the thing that Lawende may have been way off in his description, and also said that he would not be able to identify the man he saw again. Hutch lived much nearer to Miller's Court than Mitre Square, and Mrs Lewis might have been someone that HE recognised (and so feared), whereas Lawende was a total stranger.

Another explanation is that Lawende never saw JtR at all. I was very taken with the logic in Richard's Post about the echoing footsteps in Mitre Square and the fact that Morris didn't hear anything, although he was awake with the door ajar. Also why JtR would cross the Square with (a strangely silent )Eddowes, when he could have murdered her just after the passage.

Could it be that JtR and Eddowes came in from Mitre street, never crossed the Square at all, and Lawende saw a couple that were nothing to do with the 'Event' ?


to far corner, instead of murdering her straight

lynn cates
10-26-2010, 12:45 AM
Hello Ruby. I think you are on to something with your thinking here.

Try the following thought experiment. Take the double event and separate it from Polly and Annie on the one hand, and MJK on the other. Instead of 1 hand killing both, imagine 2 people, at work for the same entity, and each suggesting to meet Liz and Kate at about 12:30, one at a socialist club and the other in a heavily Jewish section of the city.

Question: How many items would now come together on this hypothesis? If you include the GSG and look at Sir Charles' letter of October 12, I'd say a good deal comes together.

Concerning the GSG you said:

"I don't think that he had a light with him, and it must have been pitch black inside that doorway."

But what if he DID have a light with him? Perhaps a policeman's lantern?

Cheers.
LC

Observer
10-26-2010, 02:13 AM
Hi Abby.....

'Fraid a couple of holes in the theory....

If he is JTR and he thinks he's been spotted by Lawende....then why on earth would he turn up at the police station whereupon he may have been stuck in a line up to be picked out by Lawende?

Say the grafitti incriminated a Jew....then what Hutchinson is asking the police to believe is that JTR the Jew stopped in the middle of the street to tell the world he's a Jew......surely inconceivable....surely no one is that stupid that they believe the police would believe that? If he really wanted to incriminate a Jew I'm sure he could have found a much better way of doing it with a few seconds thought.....

I'll pass it on it Abby....and personally think it's one of the weakest theories around....no offence intended of course.....I mean the general Hutch = JTR idea.

The best bet is that he was a crank.....possibly motivated by money.

Why.......do ........you......use.......so......many........... ............full........stops..................... ............in your.............................................. ......posts.....................................?? ????...............??????......................... .?????????

The Grave Maurice
10-26-2010, 02:45 AM
Those aren't full stops, those are pauses for....effect.

Ben
10-26-2010, 03:09 AM
Hi Fleetwood Mac,

“If he is JTR and he thinks he's been spotted by Lawende....then why on earth would he turn up at the police station whereupon he may have been stuck in a line up to be picked out by Lawende?”

Because if he approached the police as a witness, the chances are that he would have been considered in that capacity only and not as a suspect, and if he wasn’t considered a suspect, there was no reason to parade him before Lawende. On the other hand, if he was hauled in as a suspect (possibly as a result of a subsequent encounter with Lewis) without having first nailed his colours to the “helpful witness” mast, there was obviously a greater risk of being compared to previous eyewitness descriptions.

“then what Hutchinson is asking the police to believe is that JTR the Jew stopped in the middle of the street to tell the world he's a Jew......surely inconceivable....surely no one is that stupid that they believe the police would believe that?”

But the whole point is that the police did believe the killer was hoping to implicate the Jews with the GSG. They could not, therefore, have considered the proposal “inconceivable”. The facts inform us that they could not have done.

If he really wanted to incriminate a Jew I'm sure he could have found a much better way of doing it with a few seconds thought.....

Such as…?

And you’re only allowed “a few seconds thought”.

...and personally think it's one of the weakest theories around....no offence intended of course.....I mean the general Hutch = JTR idea

Well you’ve done a truly catastrophic job of arguing against it.

No offence intended, of course.

Observer
10-26-2010, 11:40 AM
Those aren't full stops, those are pauses for....effect.

Hi Mo

Oh is that what they are............they don't work.....In fact that post had about as much effect on me as those dodgy epsom salts I took one time for a bad case of constipation, boiled eggs I think. The chemist apparently was selling self raising flour instead of the said epsom salts, naughty man.

Observer

Sally
10-26-2010, 12:10 PM
Hi All

This is an interesting discussion which I think raises some valid points.

However.

I am unconvinced by the argument that Hutchinson went to the police on 12th November because he read Lewis’ testimony and feared he would be identified as her mystery man. I will explain why.

Lewis, by her own admission - twice - didn’t observe a great deal about her Crossingham’s loiterer. Initially, she told the police that she couldn’t describe him. Subsequently, having had three days to think about it, talk about it, etc. - she did find a description in her memory for the jury at Kelly’s inquest - but it remained vague in some respects, even so - she couldn’t, for example, remember what he was wearing (this in contrast to her detailed description of the other man she had seen twice, and who she clearly suspected of being the Ripper).

I have no issue with Lewis’ testimony as it stands. She apparently didn’t notice very much about her loiterer in terms of physical detail, which is quite reasonable considering that it was dark, raining, and late; and that she had other things on her mind.

It is apparent from Lewis’ testimony that she did not recognise the man outside Crossinghams. Why should she - even if George Hutchinson was a local? She didn’t live in the immediate vicinity - she was visiting a friend.

I don’t think her recollection is precise enough to identify anybody specific - and I think that is clear from Lewis’ witness testimony at Kelly’s inquest.

I think the idea that Hutchinson went to the police as a pre-emptive move out of fear is, furthermore, incompatible with the highly confident, manipulative personality often attributed to him as a suspect in the case.

I don’t think we can propose an individual who, on the one hand, is confident, intelligent and devious enough to put himself forward as a witness and hoodwink the police into believing him, when all the time he‘s secretly the Ripper; but on the other hand, is sufficiently disturbed by having been seen by Lewis - who can barely remember him - that he panics to an extent where he feels compelled to explain himself to the police.

I'm not sure it can cut both ways.

Moving on, it is undeniable that Hutchinson did place a Jew at the scene, and it is indisputably the case that prior to his statement to the police, there was no implication of Jewish involvement in the Kelly murder so far as we know.

I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that this may have been a deliberate move by Hutchinson - his agenda, if you like. I am undecided as to exactly why that might have been.

Rubyretro
10-26-2010, 02:36 PM
It's impossible to know how often Mrs Lewis was in the area -she apparently knew her friends in Miller's Court well enough to go to their house for refuge
in the early hours of the morning, so that suggests that she knew them well, and saw them currently. It is also likely that Hutch, who lived around the corner, and may have been 'watching' Mary for a while (for all we know), may
have recognised Mrs Lewis and feared that her memory would be jogged on seeing him in the street. He may have suspected the Police of withholding
information, and Mrs Lewis of having seen alot more than she said in public at the inquest.

However, I agree that all that is very moot...We don't even need it as a reason for his going to the Police, because there is a better reason :

Serial killers apparently like to involve themselves in their own cases because
they like to keep the excitement of the killing upmost in their minds and prolong the thrills (including being shown the body again ). They are controlling people who like to feel that they can misdirect the investigation and don't imagine that they will be caught -they think that they are much too clever for the Police.

The Police recognise this nowadays and look upon volunteer witnesses as potential suspects, because a murderer often turns out to be someone
known to the Case.

Mrs Lewis's statement is still important, because it coincides with Hutch's
statement. Sketchy as Mrs Lewis's description is, it nevertheless fits the contemporary drawing of Hutch. If the Police did not believe that Hutch and 'wideawake' were the same person, then surely they would be looking for 'wideawake' as the most obvious suspect ?

The fact is that no attention was paid to 'wideawake' since, I believe, the Police thought that they had already accounted for him (and that he was Hutch), and that the fact that he had come forward voluntarily, had an 'innocent' reason for being there, and the 'right' reaction to the body, mean't that he was discounted as a suspect -even if they quickly disbelieved in his story of Astrakhan Man.

Garry Wroe
10-26-2010, 02:38 PM
I am unconvinced by the argument that Hutchinson went to the police on 12th November because he read Lewis’ testimony and feared he would be identified as her mystery man.
Then why, Sally, if Hutchinson was a mere time-waster, did he not come forward sooner?

Lewis, by her own admission - twice - didn’t observe a great deal about her Crossingham’s loiterer. Initially, she told the police that she couldn’t describe him.
If, purely for the sake of argument, we assume that Hutchinson was implicated in the Whitechapel Murders, he would have had sufficient motivation to follow all aspects of the police investigation and would thus have been aware that certain elements of Joseph Lawende’s inquest testimony had been suppressed ‘in the interests of justice’. This, to his way of thinking, would have signified that the police had changed the rules of engagement, introducing the possibility that a similar strategy was being played out with Sarah Lewis. Whilst we, of course, are in a position to know that the police attached little or no significance to the Wideawake sighting and were therefore not playing mindgames with the killer, Hutchinson was not privy to such information. Consequently, the issue is not what Sarah Lewis did or did not see, it is what Hutchinson believed she may have seen, and what he believed the police might have done with such information.

It is apparent from Lewis’ testimony that she did not recognise the man outside Crossinghams. Why should she - even if George Hutchinson was a local? She didn’t live in the immediate vicinity - she was visiting a friend.
Sarah resided in Great Pearl Street, Sally, which lay a short distance north of Miller’s Court. Given the fact that she was a local, coupled with the possibility that she was also a regular visitor at Miller’s Court, it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that Hutchinson recognized her even if she failed to recognize him.

Although it may appear that I’m attempting to push a theory here, I’m simply illustrating the potential pitfalls of viewing individual case-related elements in isolation rather than as part of a bigger picture. Once this broader spectrum of events is examined, the notion that Hutchinson came forward as a direct consequence of Sarah Lewis’s revelations is irresistible to my way of thinking. But you, of course, are perfectly at liberty to disagree.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Scorpio
10-26-2010, 03:01 PM
Sorry, this theory is a handfull of chestnuts with George Hutchinsons name written on them. Poor George, you should of kept cake hole shut me old China.

Sally
10-26-2010, 03:12 PM
Hi All

Thankyou, Rubyretro and Garry, for your responses.

Rubyretro, I agree - we cannot know how often Sarah Lewis visited Miller's Court, so that one's open for speculation. Whether or not Hutchinson recognised her is, I think, besides the point. She evidently did not recognise him. We cannot know whether she knew him or not. Again, it's open for speculation.

My point was simply that the idea that Hutchinson came forward out of fear that Sarah Lewis would identify him is unconvincing - to me at least - because her recollection of seeing him - if indeed, it was him - was not good enough to do so. Her physical description of him is generic - apart from the Wideawake hat. She is apparently more interested in what her man is doing than what he looks like. I think that is quite understandable - it's odd behaviour - it's not surprising that she noticed.

Garry - I don't believe I said that I thought Hutchinson was a timewaster - and besides, that's a rather fast and loose term in my view. It is not that I am looking at an aspect of this subject in isolation; I was simply trying to address a point without getting too embroiled. I know where Great Pearl Street is, which is why I used the term 'immediate'.

And I agree with you. I think that Hutchinson probably did come forward as a direct consequence of Lewis' testimony. Clearly, there is an intimate relationship between the two events which is hard to account for in terms of pure co-incidence.

I don't believe that he came forward out of fear however, for reasons outlined above.

Rubyretro
10-26-2010, 03:33 PM
Sally...let's put Mrs Lewis aside for a mo'...Obviously we can't divorce his reasons totally from Mrs Lewis's statement, but if 'fear' wasn't the main motivation then what do you think about my other possible reason for Hutch coming forward ?

I am often loath to dismiss one reason for doing something -or one theory - when motivation may be a mixture of things and not something clearcut in real life.

Sally
10-26-2010, 04:48 PM
Hi Rubyretro - of course, you are right; motives for specific actions are quite often complex. I stand corrected - I should perhaps have said that I think fear unlikely to have been Hutchinson's primary mover in coming forward - again, from the reasoning outlined above.

I do see that he may have wanted to 'cover his bases', if that term will do.

As to your question. Yes of course it is possible that Hutchinson was a killer - or should I say, the killer, and in line with parallels, may have wanted to put himself in the hot seat for the thrill of it.

I am yet to be convinced, although I will give that theory some credence. I don't say that I consider Hutchinson to have been an innocent wanderer into the case - no, because that would require a certain naivety which I'm afraid I don't possess.

I think it unlikely that he came forward 'just' for the attention, although he does look like an attention-seeker to me. It is most likely, in my view that a person would need a powerful driver to act as Hutchinson did. My curiousity - if it can be called that - is what that driver was. I don't think 5 minutes of fame is good enough - particularly in an age and culture arguably less fame-obsessed than our own.

Why, as an example, could it have not been a case of pure anti-Semitism? We can see that what he does is put a Jew at the scene. Hatred is a powerful motivator - so maybe that accounts for it. People have done far worse than that for the sake of racial hatred, haven't they?

That's one thought.

So, in brief, I wouldn't discount your theory, but I think there are other plausible explanations.

Rubyretro
10-26-2010, 07:55 PM
pure speculation -but I can see how Hutch could be racist: he was a labourer
looking for short term contracts at the bottom end of the job market, and in a precarious position.

All those immigrants would be getting off the boats and in direct competition for jobs, and so forcing wages down. They would also be pretty docile in front of the bosses and grateful for work It's easy to see what the men at the Victoria Home might have to say about them..

That's the ones at the lowest end of the scale..

The intellectuals were busy organising themselves and fighting back to change the system -not something that the ordinary working man at the Victoria Home would appreciate either..probably seeing them as 'trouble makers' in a long established society, rather then on the same side...

The Good Michael
10-26-2010, 08:36 PM
Sally,

One thing you may want to look at is the comparison of the Hutchinson signatures on this site. You should be convinced that Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson after that, as there are no other candidates that we know of for the signatures. Combine that with the alleged son's testimony, and we have our Hutch. He could still be the murderer, but we know that he raised a family and was married twice (I believe) with no foul play.

Be warned that the signature threads are not friendly.

Mike

Fleetwood Mac
10-26-2010, 10:13 PM
I know that your reply is to Abby, Fleetwood, but since I'm 'online' at the same time as you and read it first...I can't resist replying.

First of all there is the thing that Lawende may have been way off in his description, and also said that he would not be able to identify the man he saw again. Hutch lived much nearer to Miller's Court than Mitre Square, and Mrs Lewis might have been someone that HE recognised (and so feared), whereas Lawende was a total stranger.

Another explanation is that Lawende never saw JtR at all. I was very taken with the logic in Richard's Post about the echoing footsteps in Mitre Square and the fact that Morris didn't hear anything, although he was awake with the door ajar. Also why JtR would cross the Square with (a strangely silent )Eddowes, when he could have murdered her just after the passage.

Could it be that JtR and Eddowes came in from Mitre street, never crossed the Square at all, and Lawende saw a couple that were nothing to do with the 'Event' ?


to far corner, instead of murdering her straight

It could....but then I was responding to the idea that somehow Lawende is linked to Hutchinson as JTR.

Fleetwood Mac
10-26-2010, 10:21 PM
General reply.....

The stand out feature from Hutchinson's testomony is not: 'he was of Jewish appearance'....but rather Hutchinson takes care to paint this man as a wealthy fellow.....it takes up far more of Hutchinson's statement than the Jewish angle.

The most interesting thing about Hutchinson's statement is this: if he was lying then why describe a peculiar character out of his habitat....just as it has on this board...it would have engendered far more doubt toward Hutchinson's 'believability' than it would had he described your every day East Ender...Jewish or otherwise. That to me is interesting. Either Hutchinson was unbelievably dim or he was telling the truth.

Sally
10-26-2010, 10:58 PM
Hi Mike - thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. Yes, I have read about George W Hutchinson being synonymous with this witness Hutchinson - and I think that could well be the case. The only real sticking point for me is his age - he seems a little young if you believe the press reports - wasn't Hutchinson supposed to be 28? It would be interesting to know for sure - assuming it to be the case, I still don't know that we can be sure of his motives for coming forward. That said, even if his motives were dubious, it's a long leap from being there to being a killer - as I said earlier, I'm not convinced.

Hi Fleetwood Mac - you make a very interesting point, which I confess hadn't occurred to me before. I think you are right - Hutchinson does place a lot of emphasis on the wealth of his man.

I shall have to take some time to think about that one.

Fleetwood Mac
10-26-2010, 11:14 PM
Hi Fleetwood Mac - you make a very interesting point, which I confess hadn't occurred to me before. I think you are right - Hutchinson does place a lot of emphasis on the wealth of his man.

I shall have to take some time to think about that one.



Hi Sally.....

Well....it's assumed that Hutchinson couldn't possibly have remembered such detail.....I don't necessarily go with that.....particularly if Hutchinson was preparing to rob him at some point.

And along with this the other thing argument against Hutchinson's testimony being correct is the idea that such a man......wandering round with a gold chain on show for every ruffian and his dog to have a go at....wouldn't have been in that area.....well can't have it both ways....if such a man couldn't have been there then surely Hutchinson wouldn't describe such a man were he lying.

Now I've said in the past I have him down for a crank.....but I just wonder if he was actually telling the truth. Because logically the only thing against him is the level of detail.....but then I suppose some people stop to watch a Ferrari go down the street and take notice of it.

I just wonder if the man was actually straight down the line.

Sally
10-26-2010, 11:40 PM
Hi Fleetwood Mac

I take your point - if such a character was so unlikely to have been in the area, then why did the police initally accept Hutchinson's account? I think he even remarks that it was unusual - yet perhaps not unprecedented. I think I'm right in saying that Hutchinson also said he thought he saw the same man again a couple of days later - which would support the view that well-dressed people could and did frequent the area. I am reminded here of the testimony of another witness in the Kelly case who said they saw her with a well dressed man - possibly on the Wednesday? I can't remember who that was at the minute - but you get the general point.

It's an interesting idea - that Hutchinson really did see a wealthy man with Kelly. Who might it have been? Perhaps Druitt.

Well, I think this is just one mystery amongst the vast field of mysteries in this case - so vast it's hard to know where to look first.

My perceptions are, at least, being challenged - and that's always a good thing.

Ben
10-27-2010, 03:10 AM
Hi Fleets,

“if such a man couldn't have been there then surely Hutchinson wouldn't describe such a man were he lying.”

The observation is that “such a man” was very unlikely to have ventured into that area at that time, attired in such a fashion and with his gold watch on proud and curiously unbuttoned display, not that it was beyond the realms of possibility. It is fallacious in the extreme, incidentally, to argue that the implausible level of detail in the Hutchinson description somehow increases the chances of it being true. In fact it’s disturbing similar to some of the old arguments I’ve heard touted in favour of the Maybrick diary. Oh yes, the handwriting doesn’t match the real James’ in the slightest, but since no forger could ever be so “unbelievably dim” as to abandon any attempt a emulating James’ penmanship, the diary must be real – or so the Maybrickian argument goes.

It’s such terrible logic.

And yet the idea that Hutchinson could not possibly by lying about Astrakhan man or else he’d have described someone less unlikely and less outlandish conforms to precisely the same pattern of thinking.

The fact that the diary handwriting doesn’t match Maybrick is only evidence that the forgery was a particularly bad one, and the outlandish nature of Hutchinson’s suspect is only an indication that he told a particularly unconvincing lie. It certainly doesn’t lend weight to Hutchinson’s veracity any more than mismatching handwriting lends weight to Maybrick’s authorship of the diary.

So I’m really not sure what it meant when you say we “can’t have it both ways”. One “way” asserts that the Astrahan description was likely to have been fabricated on the basis that;

A) The level of detail is demonstrably implausible if not borderline impossible given the conditions described.

B) It conveniently tallies with various physical components that had already been associated with the popular perception of the ripper’s appearance.

C) The account was discredited by and the Astrakhan man was clearly discarded as a credible ripper sighting.

What other “way” are the people who subscribe, logically and somewhat inescapably, to A, B, and C supposedly having trouble with?

The desire to “rob” another individual certainly does not bestow the putative "robber" with near superhuman powers of observation and recollection, and if such concerns were truly occupying Hutchinson’s mind, it is fathomable that he should have referred to such expensive-looking (i.e. pinchable) accessories when communicating with police?

Regards,
Ben

Ben
10-27-2010, 03:38 AM
Hello Sally,

Welcome to the boards!

I note with interest your observations with regard to the proposed Lewis recognition, and would agree that “fear” is perhaps the wrong word when applied to Hutchinson’s motivation for coming forward. It was not so much “fear” that prompted him to approach the police in response to Lewis’ evidence, in my view, but rather the recognition of an opportunity:

An opportunity to vindicate his presence at a crime scene should the need arise.

An opportunity to deflect, or rather sustain, focus in a convenient if bogus direction.

An opportunity to derive a sense of satisfaction from “getting one over” on the police.

An opportunity to keep appraised of police progress.

“I think I'm right in saying that Hutchinson also said he thought he saw the same man again a couple of days later - which would support the view that well-dressed people could and did frequent the area.”

Well, not really. The alleged subsequent sighting is simply another of Hutchinson’s claims, which could easily be false.

And if Druitt was anywhere near Miller’s Court on the night of Kelly’s murder, let alone adorned in Astrakhanian finery, I’ll eat my wideawake hat. ;)

“You should be convinced that Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson after that”

I think if we’re circumspect about this, Mike, the sensible piece of advice to a new member might have been to have a read through the discussions relating to this subject in order that she might draw her own conclusions, rather than informing her that the conclusion she “should” arrive at is the one you personally subscribe to.

“…as there are no other candidates that we know of for the signatures”

…Which is just wrong.

But much more importantly, I hope you had a great birthday!

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
10-27-2010, 11:47 AM
Ben:

"C) The account was discredited by and the Astrakhan man was clearly discarded as a credible ripper sighting."

Not true, I´m afraid - we only know that there was SOMETHING in Hutchinsons testimony that made the police draw the conclusion that he was not correct. And technically, that could have been the description of Astrakhan man, but there are other parametres to consider too.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”*
That is what the Echo states, and as you can see, they do not speak about a DESCRIPTION but instead about a STATEMENT questioned. And to from there go to an asseertion that we know what part of the statement the Echo was referring to, is to jump the gun. Let´s not do that.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
10-27-2010, 02:38 PM
“we only know that there was SOMETHING in Hutchinsons testimony that made the police draw the conclusion that he was not correct.”

Exactly, Fisherman.

That’s really all I was getting at.

It naturally follows, though, that “Mr, Astrakhan” would be dismissed a potential ripper as a by-product of the police drawing “the conclusion that he was not correct”. Other press articles express doubts about the nature of the description, but not in the context of it having been dismissed by police for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

Edit: For completion's sake I should point out that the word I meant to insert after "by" in the extract of my post quoted by Fisherman above was "police".

Fisherman
10-27-2010, 02:49 PM
Ben:

"It naturally follows, though, that “Mr, Astrakhan” would be dismissed a potential ripper as a by-product of the police drawing “the conclusion that he was not correct”."

It does, more or less - but that is not to say that the description in itself was what made the police make their call initially. As I said in my former post, there were other parametres to consider, and so far, nobody has been able to pinpoint exactly what it was that called for a dismissal on behalf of Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman

Garry Wroe
10-27-2010, 03:06 PM
It is hardly likely, Fish, that investigators would have discredited Hutchinson’s police statement but continued to view the Astrakhan description as reliable. The two, I would suggest, are mutually exclusive.

It might also be borne in mind that the police continued to raid low lodging houses in their search for the killer, a situation that would hardly have prevailed had they been looking for an affluent offender. Likewise, it was Lawende rather than Hutchinson who was called in to give Saddler the once over during the investigation into Coles’ death. All of this, added to the reality that none of the senior investigating officers who later wrote of the case gave Hutchinson so much as a mention, ought to be sufficient to provide overwhelming inferential confirmation that the Astrakhan description was accepted only briefly before being discarded.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Fisherman
10-27-2010, 03:14 PM
Garry Wroe:

"It is hardly likely, Fish, that investigators would have discredited Hutchinson’s police statement but continued to view the Astrakhan description as reliable."

Makes two of us, Garry. Thats why I answered Ben that a discarding of Astrakhan man followed more or less naturally from a discarding of Hutchinson.

"It might also be borne in mind that the police continued to raid low lodging houses in their search for the killer, a situation that would hardly have prevailed had they been looking for an affluent offender. Likewise, it was Lawende rather than Hutchinson who was called in to give Saddler the once over during the investigation into Coles’ death. All of this, added to the reality that none of the senior investigating officers who later wrote of the case gave Hutchinson so much as a mention, ought to be sufficient to provide overwhelming inferential confirmation that the Astrakhan description was accepted only briefly before being discarded."

Yes. Yes. And yes. But, as I said, none of it goes to prove that it was the description in itself that caused the police to give old George the slip. The only judgement we have on record goes in the other direction altogether - Abberlines´ assertion that he believed Hutchinson had told the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

jason_c
10-27-2010, 06:39 PM
I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death. Kelly had "punters" after Mr A. If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged. We have hoax letter writers claiming to be from the murderer charged for less serious offences.

Ben
10-27-2010, 07:03 PM
If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged.

Not if they couldn't prove it, Jason.

Which is why we also have no evidence that either Packer or Violenia were charged, despite it being obvious that they too were "wasting police time".

Which "punters after Mr. A" are you referring to?

Best regards,
Ben

Garry Wroe
10-27-2010, 07:04 PM
I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death.
I certainly believe that Dr Bond’s projected 1:00 to 2:00am time of death may have influenced police thinking, Jason, but would have some difficulty in accepting that this prevented investigators from considering other possibilities. There again, this is precisely the scenario that appears to have arisen in the Chapman case courtesy of Dr Phillips’ estimated time of death.

If GH was wasting police time he would have been charged. We have hoax letter writers claiming to be from the murderer charged for less serious offences.
Perhaps, Jason. But we also have Packer and Violenia who were most certainly not charged. They were simply dropped like a stone by investigators.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Fisherman
10-27-2010, 08:27 PM
Jason_C:

"I think it quite possible the police discounted the Astrakhan man description as a result of Kelly's likely time of death."

Not very likely, no. He was, after all, the one customer coming closest to the time of her death. And even if they must have discussed just how well the times tallied with Kelly´s death, being the last customer seen with a killed prostitute has a nasty tendency of putting you in focus.

He would have been discarded along with the rest of Hutch´s testimony for other reason/s.

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
10-27-2010, 09:20 PM
Hi All

I think my conclusion is that I have a lot to learn. I think this is an interesting area of the case, and I'm open minded about what the answer is. I really haven't theorised it so well as some contributors to this thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

But, I do have one question.

If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Once he'd made himself known to the police, and (arugably worse) the press; surely it would have been a bit more tricky to continue his fiendish career?

There were contemporary sketches - which are often quite good, I believe. So wouldn't he have run the risk of being caught?

In this scenario, he must have realised this - so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

What does everybody think?

Abby Normal
10-27-2010, 09:49 PM
Hi All

I think my conclusion is that I have a lot to learn. I think this is an interesting area of the case, and I'm open minded about what the answer is. I really haven't theorised it so well as some contributors to this thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

But, I do have one question.

If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Once he'd made himself known to the police, and (arugably worse) the press; surely it would have been a bit more tricky to continue his fiendish career?

There were contemporary sketches - which are often quite good, I believe. So wouldn't he have run the risk of being caught?

In this scenario, he must have realised this - so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

What does everybody think?

Hi Sally

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

IMHO it was a calculated risk as i stated in my original post:

"On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead."

so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

Its not clear what became of him.

If he was "Toppy" apparently he went on to have, as far as we know, a normal marriage and had kids.

If he was not Toppy and therefore basically "unknown GH"- who knows?
I personally lean toward unknown GH and that after Mary Kelly's murder he took time off from his murders as the investigation got too hot and then during this time he either became ill and/or died, moved away, or was incarcerated.

jason_c
10-27-2010, 10:24 PM
Hi Sally

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

IMHO it was a calculated risk as i stated in my original post:

"On the night of Mary Kelly’s murder, he is seen again by a witness by Sarah Lewis, as he waits outside of Miller’s court. After missing the inquest-where he knows there will be witnesses-he decides to make the bold decision to go to the police (on his terms) this time in his plan of misleading them further and to give a reason of why he was there that night. Perhaps he recognized Lewis that night and feared she might know him as well (perhaps even his name) since by his own admission he had known Mary Kelly for a long time. If there was a good chance they might be looking for him as a suspect who was perhaps suspiciously waiting and watching outside the murdered woman’s court, perhaps it was a good calculated risk to come forward as a potential witness instead."

so what did he do? Give it up? Move away?

Its not clear what became of him.

If he was "Toppy" apparently he went on to have, as far as we know, a normal marriage and had kids.

If he was not Toppy and therefore basically "unknown GH"- who knows?
I personally lean toward unknown GH and that after Mary Kelly's murder he took time off from his murders as the investigation got too hot and then during this time he either became ill and/or died, moved away, or was incarcerated.

Hes also had a number of other witnesses who could then identify him, Lawende and Schwartz.

GH seen at one crime scene is a coincidence, at two of them hes a killer set for the gallows.

jason_c
10-27-2010, 10:33 PM
With regards Packer. Do we know what he told police in his second statement? Or was it all newspaper talk? I genuinely do not know.

Rubyretro
10-27-2010, 10:34 PM
If, for the sake of argument, Hutchinson was a killer, JTR!

Then, wouldn't taking himself off to the cop shop (excuse the vernacular, its been a long day) mean shooting himself in the foot?

Quite !

Indeed, I think, personally that's why the murders stopped. Certainly if JtR and Hutch were one and the same, then he was no longer in the position to ever be seen near a murder site again...

...but maybe he hadn't thought that bit through sufficiently beforehand in his excited state at butchering MJK, playing cat and mouse with the Police, and being the centre of Press attention?

Maybe his immediate motivations in coming forward over-rode other considerations in the heat of the moment ?

We can only speculate as to what became of Hutch...as we don't know who he was..serial killers certainly can stop killing, and accidents and illnesses happen, as does getting locked up for a totally different offence.He may have moved away or emigrated,
for all we know. It is possible that his name was an alias.

I certainly disagree that the 'Jewish part' of Hutch's description, was less important that the 'wealthy' part. Hutch clearly stated 'jewish appearence' 'foreign looking' and he put a horseshoe tiepin on the man -google 'hamsa horseshoe'. By saying that he maybe saw the man again on Petticoat market, he was placing A Man in a place which was described as '90 %' Jewish.

Rubyretro
10-27-2010, 10:38 PM
[QUOTE=jason_c;152342]Hes also had a number of other witnesses who could then identify him, Lawende and Schwartz.

Not certain at all.

Fleetwood Mac
10-27-2010, 11:32 PM
Hi Ben

Hi Fleets,

The observation is that “such a man” was very unlikely to have ventured into that area at that time, attired in such a fashion and with his gold watch on proud and curiously unbuttoned display, not that it was beyond the realms of possibility.



Semantics Ben.

The argument goes that the level of detail and the man's supposed wealth casts serious doubt on his statement. Those who discredit Hutchinson use this as a cornerstone of the argument - I think you'll agree.

Now if it is 'very unlikely' then reason dictates that it is very unlikely Hutchinson would have described such a man where telling a lie.

Logic/reason means that if you think he is unlikely to have been in that type of area at that time of night....and the majority of the board think it unlikely......majority view and all that.....which is the best you would have to go on when it comes to reason and logic in this case......then the chances are that another human being....Hutchinson....would have thought it unlikely to have been believed. That's logical.



It is fallacious in the extreme, incidentally, to argue that the implausible level of detail in the Hutchinson description somehow increases the chances of it being true. In fact it’s disturbing similar to some of the old arguments I’ve heard touted in favour of the Maybrick diary. Oh yes, the handwriting doesn’t match the real James’ in the slightest, but since no forger could ever be so “unbelievably dim” as to abandon any attempt a emulating James’ penmanship, the diary must be real – or so the Maybrickian argument goes.



Except it's not a case of 'could never have been' when the evidence suggests that in fact it wasn't. Evidence lacking in order to refute Hutchinson by the way. And I didn't say he wasn't lying...I said he would have had to have been unbelievablly dim to present such a case and expect it to be taken for granted. Perhaps he was. The difference with the Maybrick forger is that he would have had to have gone some to ensure that diary could not have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been a forgery.....whereas Hutchinson had a very easy task on his hands....just describe Broad Shoulders or someone similar....easy....which ensures my point stands.....Hutchinson went the very long way round telling a tale...were it a tale.

And then there's a flaw with your logic Ben.....in that you ask the board to believe that because the Maybrick forger was dim then it follows so was Hutchinson....when in fact it doesn't follow at all. The Maybrick forger bears absolutely on significance to what Hutchinson did or didn't see.



A) The level of detail is demonstrably implausible if not borderline impossible given the conditions described.



Can you put some meat on the bones of this one Ben.....because if this is the case then it renders our conversation redundant within seconds.



B) It conveniently tallies with various physical components that had already been associated with the popular perception of the ripper’s appearance.



This doesn't follow at all. In the first instance you're asking the board to believe he was fabricating to the point of 'unbelievable level of detail'......then you're suggesting that he was following the norm. Which is it? And were he following the norm.....then just describe broad shoulders...surely more believable and in line with the norm?



The desire to “rob” another individual certainly does not bestow the putative "robber" with near superhuman powers of observation and recollection



Superhuman? You're stretching it Ben...he remembers or lies about his clothes a watch a red neckerchief and one or two other things. In all honestly....I was sitting next to a girl on the train back from work today and I reckon I could give you a very accurate and detailed description of her.....clothes......looks......bag she was carrying....admittedly it was light.....and I spoke with her and reckon I could tell you roughly which part of Manchester she comes from and recognise her voice again. Some people just catch your eye and you remember them......seems unlikely to you.....not to me because I personally have a good memory for these things...perhaps Hutchinson did too.

claire
10-28-2010, 01:20 AM
If we presume, for a moment, that he actually did see someone, it's worth remembering that Hutchinson was making his statement in the full knowledge of what had transpired after he'd seen Mr A. In other words, it's perfectly plausible that, given what he knew had happened to MK, he filled in a few blanks in his own memory, putting slants and details on things that weren't necessarily there, simply because he wanted to help the police.

This really isn't unusual--I remember when I was doing some research at the police training college in NZ, and they were teaching basic interview techniques, they emphasised the importance of ensuring witnesses didn't provide information simply because the interviewing officer asked for it. (Apologies, Ben, I am about to go into a dialogue.) Otherwise, you'd typically get something like, 'Did you see what colour his hair was?' 'Erm...' 'Brown? Light?' 'Yes, light.' 'Sure?' 'Yep, I think so. Yep.'

It's easy to read GH's interview statement as a continuous narrative, because that's how it's presented on the page. But it seems to me perfectly likely that this is not how he presented it to the police. Asked for 'any additional detail,' for example, he may have offered up more than he could actually remember (astrakhan cuffs, red hankies and so on)...and actually started to see those details in his memory. People like to be helpful, sometimes to the point of being obstructive, and I think there is at least a chance that this was the case with Hutchinson (even to the point where he mistook the day).

People's own prejudices can come into play here, too, and not necessarily vindictively. We carry a lot of preconceptions and prejudices with us, and it's plausible that GH just got carried away with the moment. This makes him not a malicious time-waster, or a person intent on seeking attention, but a man whose tedious everyday life was suddenly given a bit of colour by his casual association with a high profile crime.

Just thoughts, of course, but in fancying GH (as I have, and still do, often), it's worth considering the more mundane possible psychologies behind his actions.

Garry Wroe
10-28-2010, 03:22 AM
You are absolutely correct, Claire, that witness statements are vulnerable to influences such as leading questions or the dreaded interviewer effect – the phenomenon by which subconscious cognitive processes lead an interviewee to inadvertently provide answers that will please the interviewer. In order for such processes to have affected Hutchinson’s police interview, however, there must by necessity have been a pre-existing suspicion on the part of Abberline or/and Badham that the Whitechapel Murderer was an affluent Jew given to displays of ostentation. Yet the evidence indicates that senior investigators sought the killer amongst the mean streets that surrounded the slums of Flower and Dean Street – hardly the vicinity in which an individual such as Astrakhan Man was liable to be found. On this basis, therefore, I think it highly unlikely that Hutchinson’s official statement was unduly influenced by his police inquisitors. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how Astrakhan Man could have deviated more from official police thinking regarding the killer’s likely appearance and social status.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Ben
10-28-2010, 03:31 AM
Hi FM,

“The argument goes that the level of detail and the man's supposed wealth casts serious doubt on his statement. Those who discredit Hutchinson use this as a cornerstone of the argument - I think you'll agree.”

But “those who discredit Hutchinson” just happen to include the contemporary police, and as such, I consider myself in good company. If there is any real “cornerstone” to the argument that Hutchinson was discredited, the nature of the description is really rather superfluous – the icing on the mucky iceberg, if you will. “Those who discredit Hutchinson” need only reference the overwhelming evidence that the police supported this view, and any opposition to that view is effectively nullified.

“Now if it is 'very unlikely' then reason dictates that it is very unlikely Hutchinson would have described such a man where telling a lie.”

Ah no, Fleets, this is precisely the sort of argumentation I alluded to in yesterday’s post, and it should be avoided at all costs. You’re arguing that if Hutchinson was lying, he would have told a less obvious lie. That really doesn’t make any sense, and contrary to your assertion, is certainly isn’t “logical”. If the lie seems particularly implausible, the logical deduction is that the liar was particularly clumsy and unsubtle. The “unlikely” nature of the Astrakhan description is only an indication that it was “unlikely” to have been true.

The argument that X or Y must be true because no self-respecting liar could ever come up with something so implausible is a very bad attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

If we assume, strictly for the sake of argument, that Hutchinson was the killer and came forward seeking to deflect suspicion away from Lewis’ wideawake man, and in a false and convenient direction, it was necessary to describe someone of a very different appearance to himself. Substituting Astrakhan with “broad shoulders” wouldn’t have made the remotest bit of sense. If Hutchinson killed Stride, if follows that he WAS “broad shoulders”, and the act of describing himself would utterly defeat the purpose of diverting suspicion in a different direction. Astrakhan Man was, in many respects, an ideal choice – besides pandering to a great deal of the sensationalist press articles that had been championing the notion that the killer was a conspicuous outsider, conveying an external menace, Jewish, foreign, and possibly with medical credentials, he was also the polar opposite of a local nondescript labourer, which Hutchinson ostensibly was.

Please bear in mind that, despite possible appearances to the contrary, this really isn’t an argument in favour of Hutchinson’s guilt. I’ll save those for a rainy day. What I’m arguing against here is the premise that “IF Hutchinson was the killer, he wouldn’t have used Astrakhan man as a fictional suspect”.

“And then there's a flaw with your logic Ben.....in that you ask the board to believe that because the Maybrick forger was dim then it follows so was Hutchinson....when in fact it doesn't follow at all.”

I never said it did.

I said that the champions of both Hutchinson’s truthfulness and the diary’s genuineness have, at times, resorted to the same fallacy – that the bogus nature of the content increases the likelihood of the content being true because - so the argument goes - nobody could have come up with something so bogus.

“In all honestly....I was sitting next to a girl on the train back from work today and I reckon I could give you a very accurate and detailed description of her.....clothes......looks......bag she was carrying....admittedly it was light”

Is this a really comparable situation?

A lighted train carriage at close quarters with what was clearly ample time at your disposal, as against a fleeting moment in dark Victorian London, on a miserable November night? If people really wish to discuss the finer points of the description in detail again there are more appropriate threads for it, but what strikes me as extraordinary is the (admittedly dwindling) number of people who accept that Hutchinson was able to memorise minute, fiddly items that he almost certainly couldn’t have noticed.

The only opportunity he had to notice anything so tiny as a horseshoe tiepin and “white buttons over button boots” was when Astrakhan man passed fleetingly under a gas lamp, and yet at this precise moment, Hutchinson claims to have been scrutinising the details of the man’s face. If anyone really wants to expend energy arguing that he could have noticed all these things simultaneously at that moment, they’re welcome to do so, but I’d encourage them to have a long hard think about it first.

And the account was still discredited.

Best regards,
Ben

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 10:00 AM
Mac, whilst I totally agree with Ben on the reasons why Hutch would describe a suspect as far from himself as possible, I would point out that
very good liars often use implausible lies. This is because they know that
lots of people think like you !

For example, if someone were to ring into work and say "I'm not coming in to work today because.." I feel sick/my child is sick/my car broke down or
something which could very well be true, but is mundane, they might be
suspected of telling porkies to get the day off.

I think that if they said something like -"I took my son to the Circus last night and there was an incident with one of the elephants that they were leading out -apparently it was frightened by some nuns in the carpark !- and it sat
on my car infact...it's not too damaged, but I need to sort it out, and all the insurance details with the Circus" -it would be more likely to be believed.

Fisherman
10-28-2010, 10:08 AM
That´s a thought, of course, Ruby. But the guy who spoke of the car park elephant would not have to be subjected to Frederick Abberline, asking all sorts of relevant questions connected to it all; the name of the circus, the time of the show, the name of the insurance guy who investigated the damages, the sequence of events ... you name it.
His role must be looked upon as being very crucial - and he did ask all them questions, and afterwards he was still of the opinion that Huchinson was truthful. That needs to be weighed in before we start laughing.

The best,
Fisherman

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 11:22 AM
The Circus story was only an illustration that a liar would not have to be dim at all to tell an implausible story -and if Abberline thought like Fleetwood Mac, then it's very implausibility might have been why he initially took it seriously.

However, A Man was impossible to check out...although I've said before that, if such a person existed, then his description would surely have been recognised by people who knew him, and someone would have come forward to 'shop him' -especially with a huge reward going.

I do think that Hutch got the description from SOMEWHERE though ; If he had just been led by Police questions (unlikely, for the reasons Garry outlined), then I don't see how he would have remembered all the details afterwards to embellish for the Press.

I used to think that A Man must have been someone (or an amalgamation) of someone (or people) that Hutch knew from his past. I think that Bob's scenario is quite good though (in his book), of the shop window dummy and getting the spats wrong (not worn with evening dress) -given that Hutch clearly couldn't remember all the details of the man's face between his statement and Press description, but had the clothing off pat.

It is funny how, when imagining my false 'Circus' lie 'phone-call, I naturally put in too many details (my son, the nuns etc), instead of 'an elephant sat on my car'. I didn't do this on purpose...I noticed it reading back. It's human nature for liars to put in too many details to persuade people of the 'truth' of their story, and to use past experiences not to forget the details.

Fisherman
10-28-2010, 11:29 AM
My hunch, Ruby, is that we need not see the lack of someone coming forward to confirm Astrakhan mans existence as some sort of confirmation that he never was there - the hunt was called off at a very early stage, and anybody coming forward after that would have been sent the same way as George Hutchinson himself.

The best,
Fisherman

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 11:48 AM
My hunch, Ruby, is that we need not see the lack of someone coming forward to confirm Astrakhan mans existence as some sort of confirmation that he never was there - the hunt was called off at a very early stage, and anybody coming forward after that would have been sent the same way as George Hutchinson himself.The best,
Fisherman

That no-one came frward to confirm A Man's existance is only one reason that lends to the idea that he didn't exist -the others having been well detailed in the past.

it is inconceivable that the Police wouldn't have been interested in A Man, if he had become known to them, since they had never caught MJK's murderer.
Even if they had discounted Hutch by then, had A Man proved to be a real person, then they would have had to re-take Hutch seriously -because how could he have known of A's existence otherwise ?

claire
10-28-2010, 12:22 PM
You are absolutely correct, Claire, that witness statements are vulnerable to influences such as leading questions or the dreaded interviewer effect – the phenomenon by which subconscious cognitive processes lead an interviewee to inadvertently provide answers that will please the interviewer. In order for such processes to have affected Hutchinson’s police interview, however, there must by necessity have been a pre-existing suspicion on the part of Abberline or/and Badham that the Whitechapel Murderer was an affluent Jew given to displays of ostentation. Yet the evidence indicates that senior investigators sought the killer amongst the mean streets that surrounded the slums of Flower and Dean Street – hardly the vicinity in which an individual such as Astrakhan Man was liable to be found. On this basis, therefore, I think it highly unlikely that Hutchinson’s official statement was unduly influenced by his police inquisitors. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how Astrakhan Man could have deviated more from official police thinking regarding the killer’s likely appearance and social status.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Sorry, Garry, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the police fed him the information--as in, 'was he Jewish looking?' or whatever. I think I made explicit mention of people's own prejudices coming to bear on this. People often want to be helpful, even when they cannot, and when they cannot, they frequently improvise. GH's own prejudices may have included a degree of anti-semitism, or just a general wariness of Jews (contextualised by the time, place and social milieu); he may correspondingly have emphasised this or, the chap he saw may well have been of Jewish appearance, with the precise detail embellished by GH because he didn't want to 'disappoint' the police with a vague, pale recollection.

I am not saying anything contentious here. I am simply noting psychological possibilities and I am in no way suggesting what you seem to interpret me as saying--that the police put the Jewish subject in GH's mind and mouth. My point was just about people's desire to be helpful, even when this can be counterproductive.

Fisherman
10-28-2010, 12:23 PM
Ruby:

"it is inconceivable that the Police wouldn't have been interested in A Man, if he had become known to them, since they had never caught MJK's murderer.
Even if they had discounted Hutch by then, had A Man proved to be a real person, then they would have had to re-take Hutch seriously -because how could he have known of A's existence otherwise ?"

That is a very good question, Ruby. Now all you need is a very good answer!

The best,
Fisherman

claire
10-28-2010, 12:31 PM
I do think that Hutch got the description from SOMEWHERE though ; If he had just been led by Police questions (unlikely, for the reasons Garry outlined), then I don't see how he would have remembered all the details afterwards to embellish for the Press.


As I said (and Garry's refutation was of something I did not say, so really, it doesn't stand), GH could quite conceivably have seen someone who looked a bit like the detailed picture he ended up presenting. I never, ever said that he was 'just led by police questions.' You make it sound as though I was suggesting that GH walked in off the street and said he might have seen something, and the interviewing officer fed him a whole lot of detailed misconception that he then carried around with him, adopting it as his own. This is not what I said, and I really wish that people could stop skimming posts by people they aren't cliquey with, assuming they know what it says and dismissing that poster as automatically and a priori stupid.

The police, and the press, were hungry for detail. GH could have been the sort of person carried away by the attention, and didn't want to disappoint. The bare description of Mr A could be accurate, the details embellished by GH because he sensed people were after more. The more he could provide, the brighter the eyes of the listeners, and the longer the attention he got would last. It's simple human nature.

And as I said, it remains a possibility, not a stupid thoughtless suggestion from someone outside the clique.

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 01:07 PM
I don't think it's a stupid suggestion at all Claire -nor do I ever 'skim' your Posts. I simply didn't agree with it. That's because, on balance, I don't think that Hutch even spoke to Mary in the street that night, and nor do I think that his embellishments were 'innocent' -but rather very designed.

That is just a personal opinion.

I think that if I'm in a 'clique', then it's a clique of 'one' !!

Can't we be friends, even if we don't agree ?

claire
10-28-2010, 01:19 PM
Actually, Rubyretro, I happen to agree that there was something fishy about Hutch, but I admit that a lot of that has to do with a gut feeling rather than perfect logic (I'm spooked by anyone who'd say they'd followed people [particularly in the course of conducting a private contract] and hung around in the cold and wet waiting for them before, for no real reason, just clearing off)...in the interests of at least appearing scholarly (!) I just wanted to examine the possibilities of GH's (and other witnesses') statements as being driven by generally benign motive, dressed up with detail. :)

Ben
10-28-2010, 01:41 PM
The description contained both elements from "Leather Apron" and snippets from previous eyewitness descriptions, as well as incorporating the "gentleman with the black bag/package" myth that had been popular since Dr. Phillips' evidence from the Hanbury Street inquest seemed to pinpoint a medical hand in the murders. So I think the description was an "amalgamation" of sorts.

Other elements to the account appeared to have been borrowed from newspaper articles, such as this one from The Times of 10th November:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

That same edition also included no less than three accounts of men with black bags.

Best wishes,
Ben

lynn cates
10-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Hello Ruby. I agree about the notion of testimony being "designed."

Hutchinson's testimony has the feel of being"designed" and then "planted"--much as John Kelly's testimony about Kate and Schwartz's about Liz and BS.

Cheers.
LC

jason_c
10-28-2010, 02:09 PM
Sorry for going off topic. But do we know what Packer told the police in his second statement?

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 02:21 PM
Actually, Rubyretro, I happen to agree that there was something fishy about Hutch, but I admit that a lot of that has to do with a gut feeling rather than perfect logic (I'm spooked by anyone who'd say they'd followed people [particularly in the course of conducting a private contract] and hung around in the cold and wet waiting for them before, for no real reason, just clearing off)...in the interests of at least appearing scholarly (!) I just wanted to examine the possibilities of GH's (and other witnesses') statements as being driven by generally benign motive, dressed up with detail. :)

I certainly agree that it's worth considering whether Hutch had a benign motive for dressing up his description of A Man or not. It's just that I see the
very strong Jewish angle to his description -because I think that he stressed the point almost too much (adding that detail in about Petticoat Lane). It COULD be 'innocent' in that the public and Police were biased towards a Jewish culprit for JtR, granted.

Still, if you then look at the larger picture of the murder sites at Berner street and Mitre square and the apron piece in the building in Goulston Street, then
Hutch's description doesn't seem so innocent. That's not even taking into account Buck's Row and Hanbury street, and the anti-jewish fever suceeding
those events( We're going back to abby's original Post now).

Then if you look at the sites of the murders in relation to where Hutch lived,
modern 'profiles' of serial killers, and witnesses -he fits the bill.

Of course that could still all be innocent coincidences -which abound and confuse this case; Maybe the murderer was a complete unkown afterall. But how to explain why the murders suddenly stopped ?

As soon as you think that Hutch was the murderer then there is a logical explanation as to why the murders stopped (detailed earlier on in the Thread).

When you start thinking that Hutch may have been JtR, and then looking at his placing himself at the last murder site, in the right time frame, and Mrs Lewis's Statement appearing to corroborate it...it adds up.

I admit that it might be false deduction (2 +2 =5), but none of the other candidates such as Druitt or Tumblety or Chapman add up in this way for Me.
It just brings me back to Hutch or 'unknown'.

These were my first thoughts on reading the facts on Casebook, before I even knew that Garry, Bob, Ben etc existed.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joel Hall that it is great fun debating with people who disagree with your arguments, since it will either harden them or force you to reconsider them; I've had to change my mind or drop (for the moment !) alot of details -but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Rubyretro;152418]I certainly agree that it's worth considering whether Hutch had a benign motive for dressing up his description of A Man or not. It's just that I see the
very strong Jewish angle to his description -because I think that he stressed the point almost too much (adding that detail in about Petticoat Lane). It COULD be 'innocent' in that the public and Police were biased towards a Jewish culprit for JtR, granted.[/QUOTE]Still, if you then look at the larger picture of the murder sites at Berner street and Mitre square and the apron piece in the building in Goulston Street, then
Hutch's description doesn't seem so innocent. That's not even taking into account Buck's Row and Hanbury street, and the anti-jewish fever suceeding
those events( We're going back to abby's original Post now).

Then if you look at the sites of the murders in relation to where Hutch lived,
modern 'profiles' of serial killers, and witnesses -he fits the bill.

Of course that could still all be innocent coincidences -which abound and confuse this case; Maybe the murderer was a complete unkown afterall. But how to explain why the murders suddenly stopped ?

As soon as you think that Hutch was the murderer then there is a logical explanation as to why the murders stopped (detailed earlier on in the Thread).

When you start thinking that Hutch may have been JtR, and then looking at his placing himself at the last murder site, in the right time frame, and Mrs Lewis's Statement appearing to corroborate it...it adds up.

I admit that it might be false deduction (2 +2 =5), but none of the other candidates such as Druitt or Tumblety or Chapman add up in this way for Me.
It just brings me back to Hutch or 'unknown'.

These were my first thoughts on reading the facts on Casebook, before I even knew that Garry, Bob, Ben etc existed.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joel Hall that it is great fun debating with people who disagree with your arguments, since it will either harden them or force you to reconsider them; I've had to change my mind or drop (for the moment !) alot of details -but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.

(I can see that someone who had a book to defend might find it very important not to be proved wrong -but I don't actually care).

The Good Michael
10-28-2010, 02:38 PM
-but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.

The fallacy is that Hutchinson is a suspect without one jot of evidence against him, yet we, the sane are asked to convince you otherwise. That is a backwards approach at investigation, and it isn't just you and it isn't just Hutchinson. It's the way suspect stuff goes. Folks make claims and then try and prove their claims and then write a book or an article. When evidence arises that is contrary to a belief in a suspect, it is typically dismissed because the eyes that are looking intently, are not seeking logic, but are instead looking for minutiae with which to base a refutation upon. Hutchinson may be guilty, but the evidence is non-existent. I know only one thing with certainty: Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

Cheers,

Mike

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE=lynn cates;152415]Hello Ruby. I agree about the notion of testimony being "designed."

Hutchinson's testimony has the feel of being"designed" and then "planted"--much as John Kelly's testimony about Kate and Schwartz's about Liz and BS.

Cheers.
LC[

Lynn -when I say 'designed', I mean't designed by Hutch alone to deflect suspicion from himself and to direct the investigation towards a Jewish suspect, and to fit in with prevailing public ideas of the 'profile' of Jtr.

I am fascinated by Ben's Post (there is notihng 'cliquey' in that, since I do not know the guy). It rings true.

I don't think that there is any 'conspiracy' behind the murders. I think that, given the huge reward, if someone had known who JtR was, they would have 'shopped' him.

I don't think that neither Schwartz nor Kelly were anything other than honest.

On the otherhand, I thnk that -somewhere- Hutch might tie in with your
research, Lynn. As he might be somewhere in Rob House's arson cases -lurking in the background.

I personally think that Liz was 'one of his', and BSM doesn't fit his MO as the killer. Yet, the 'timeline' is so short that he couldn't have been far away. I don't think that he wrote the GSG after killing Kate -yet, he probably knew it was there. Polly was killed on the same night as a (2 ?) dock fires.

I feel that Hutch was acting alone as a secret 'serial killer' but he might well have been on the perifery of something bigger -aimed at Jewish organisations.

I don't think that we'll ever know -because I don't think that he'd have gone to the Police offering A Man as a suspect, if he was 'known' as an anti-semite to them...

...unless that is why they discounted 'A Man' as a 'suspect' of course !...but I'm thinking (speculating) out loud (once again !!).

Abby Normal
10-28-2010, 04:36 PM
The fallacy is that Hutchinson is a suspect without one jot of evidence against him, yet we, the sane are asked to convince you otherwise. That is a backwards approach at investigation, and it isn't just you and it isn't just Hutchinson. It's the way suspect stuff goes. Folks make claims and then try and prove their claims and then write a book or an article. When evidence arises that is contrary to a belief in a suspect, it is typically dismissed because the eyes that are looking intently, are not seeking logic, but are instead looking for minutiae with which to base a refutation upon. Hutchinson may be guilty, but the evidence is non-existent. I know only one thing with certainty: Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike

Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

How so? I am all ears. seriously, I have a totally open mind on this and would like to hear your reasoning.

lynn cates
10-28-2010, 04:50 PM
Hello Ruby. Speculation is a good thing. That's where paradigms are born.

As to John Kelly--look over his testimony (especially as to Kate's early release from a casual ward).

Cheers.
LC

Rubyretro
10-28-2010, 05:09 PM
Hello Ruby. Speculation is a good thing. That's where paradigms are born.

As to John Kelly--look over his testimony (especially as to Kate's early release from a casual ward).

Cheers.
LC

I agree with you about 'speculation'.

Maybe you meant to be ironic and I didn't get it ? but since you speculate yourself, I'll take it seriously ; obviously through speculation it is possible to arrive at a viable theory.

I know john Kelly's Statement -and the only thing that I think that he wasn't entirely honest about, was turning a blind eye to the fact that they never saw her daughter (because Kate didn't know her daughter's new address), and that when Kate came home saying that she'd borrowed money from her daughter, she had infact resorted to prostitution.

So I think that he 'lied' that Kate wasn't a sometime prostitute by kindness/guilt - but for the rest, I think that he told the truth.

The Good Michael
10-28-2010, 05:16 PM
Abby,

Signatures of Hutchinson from his testimony are a match for signatures of George WT Hutchinson. There is a little variance due to time passing, but they are the same if you look at the thread regarding this. They are the only two George Hutchinsons living in the same area at the same time and these signatures were compared years after Knights book and Reginald's (George Topping Hutchinson's son) discussion about his father being a witness to one of the murders. On top of this, we are able to understand why Topping was inserted into his name. It was from his mother's side (if I'm not mistaken). Also, Hutchinson's father was a plumber as so was Topping, though he was listed as laborer and groom during the time of the murders. The big argument against (little, really) is the idea of Hutchinson calling himself a plumber later in life when he was a laborer earlier. The argument has to do with apprenticeship periods beginning at 14 years of age. This argument supposes that no one could become a plumber without apprenticeship. Of course a box of tools and desire says a lot about what a person can become. The apprenticeship process was seriously on the wane by that time as well in is just a bit of loose tar on the road.

Cheers,

Mike

Ben
10-28-2010, 05:43 PM
Abby - With all due respect to Mike, the above is littered with a mixture of highly contentious opinions dressed up as fact, statements which he cannot possibly know to be true, and outright falsehoods.

In the first category, we have the claim that:

"Signatures of Hutchinson from his testimony are a match for signatures of Hutchinson."

In Mike's controversial opinion.

But according to an expert document examiner who compared the original signatures, the signatures do not match.

I'm with the professional document examiner.

Then there's this:

They are the only two George Hutchinsons living in the same area at the same time

This is just wrong.

Unless Mike has some sort of equivalent of an 1888 census, he cannot possibly have any idea how many George Hutchinsons were living in that area at that time, and to compound the gaffe, there's no evidence that Toppy was anywhere near the East End in 1888.

these signatures were compared years after Knights book and Reginald's (George Topping Hutchinson's son) discussion about his father being a witness to one of the murders.

Absolutely wrong.

The discussion with Reginald was outlined in the Ripper and the Royals by Melvyn Fairclough - a very bad version of the Royal Conspiracy theory published in the early 1990s. Document examiner Sue Iremonger compared the Hutchinson signatures (and Maybrick's handwriting versus the "diarist") around the same time - 1993 if I'm not mistaken. So they weren't compared "years after" at all.

Also, Hutchinson's father was a plumber as so was Topping, though he was listed as laborer and groom during the time of the murders.

Toppy's father was a plumber.

We have no data on the father of the Hutchinson who made the statement.

As for Toppy himself, he was described by his son as a plumber who was "rarely, if ever, out of work", which neatly coincides with the 1891 census entry placing him in Warren Street in the West End, working as a plumber. If he was a 25-year-old plumber in 1891, he was very unlikely to have been a 22-year-old labouring former groom in 1888. Plumbing apprenticeships don't start at 22 and don't last a mere three years. The rules for entry into the plumbing trade had become stricter at that time, according to an article provided by Sam Flynn, in stark contrast to Mike's claim that the process was on the "wane".

Mike - I don't mean to get unduly stroppy about all this again, and I know you were only responding to Abby's question, but is it really too much to ask that we confine the Toppy-talk to the relevant threads, rather than doing this all over again? I've no problem with anyone who wants to defend Hutchinson's innocence, truthfulness, star witness status, whatever, as long as the defence consists of something rather more compelling than "But it was Toppy!".

Please?

Best wishes,
Ben

P.S. These are the Toppiest threads I can find:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2891

Fisherman
10-29-2010, 09:25 AM
Ben writes:

"In Mike's controversial opinion.
But according to an expert document examiner who compared the original signatures, the signatures do not match.
I'm with the professional document examiner."

Can I just ask you, Ben: If your wish is to see to it that Abby is informed about all sides of the case, ensuring a circumspect wiew and an unbiased picture ...
... then why is it that you do not write that TWO professional document examiners have looked at the signatures, and that we know that the examination performed only last year by Frank Leander from SKL in Sweden opted for a match?
Why do you not tell Abby that the examination YOU are referring to was performed seventeen years ago, and that we have no absolute proof telling us that Sue Iremonger even used relevant material?

Why did this get lost? What purpose could it possibly serve?
The purpose of an unbiased information, giving Abby a fair chance to assess all the material involved? Or the purpose of painting a picture where all the relevant expert work on the signatures calls for a verdict of non-identity, in spite of the fact that both you and me know that this is not true?

This time over, let´s beware about this, Ben. No good will come from not telling the whole story, as you no doubt realize. You favour Iremonger, and that is fine - we all make our own choices. But before we make them, it is relevant to be presented with all the options, something I hope you agree with.

The very best,
Fisherman

Rubyretro
10-29-2010, 10:26 AM
My understanding of Frank Leander's comparison is that he didn't see the original sigatures and said that he would not be able to give a full expert opinion.

when pushed, he said " It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person" but also found a number of differences : "Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature"

I think that his conclusion was at the " Lower end of the positive scale", but he stressed again " In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!".

All in all it's very luke warm, and since we also have an expert opinion to say that it's NOT a match, I never used to cite the signatures as proof of anything -even when I was a Toppyite.

Rubyretro
10-29-2010, 10:31 AM
My understanding of Frank Leander's comparison is that he didn't see the original sigatures and said that he would not be able to give a full expert opinion.

when pushed, he said " It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person" but also found a number of differences : "Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature"

I think that his conclusion was at the " Lower end of the positive scale", but he stressed again " In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!".

All in all it's very luke warm, and since we also have an expert opinion to say that it's NOT a match, I never used to cite the signatures as proof of anything -even when I was a Toppyite.

It's pretty unfair to tell Abby that the signatures are a match, when nothing is less sure.

Fisherman
10-29-2010, 10:33 AM
Ben!

I have re-read your post, and so I notice that you actually do pinpoint Iremongers examination in time. Thus I should not have written that this information lacked in your post. Sorry about that - my mistake.

My main criticism still stands, though.

If I may, I would like to add a further thing: Since we have now positioned us and pointed Abby to the Hutchinson threads regarding the signatures and signature examinations, I suggest that we leave the trenches before we get too accustomed to them, and let Abby do the reading required without any further involvement on our respective behalfs. We have been over this in extenso, and all the arguments are there to be found in the former threads already - including a number of comments that I sense both you and I wish were not there.

This thread should be primarily about Abbys suggestion from post number one, and although the signature issue will always belong to any discussion of Hutchinson, it would perhaps serve the ongoing discussion better if we could give it a rest.

All the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
10-29-2010, 10:36 AM
Ruby, my post 87 to Ben will have to do for you too. If you wish to have a further discussion of the signature bits, this is not the thread for it. And as it stands, I will do what I can to avoid that discussion - not because of any dearth of arguments, but because I wish to avoid any bad blood.

The best,
Fisherman

The Good Michael
10-29-2010, 06:04 PM
It's pretty unfair to tell Abby that the signatures are a match, when nothing is less sure.

Unfair? What is unfair is to have an agenda and then to disregard anything that doesn't fit into it. We who have examined the signatures as unbiased participants, not caring or having a clue as to who JTR was, and not openly theorizing that JTR was Hutchinson, have come to the conclusion, as has Leander, and as most certainly has not Iremonger because she didn't look at all the signatures, that they are more likely to belong to the same man. The match is obvious to those who really see.

Unfair is besmirching a dead man's reputation based upon less than nothing.

Mike

sunflower
10-29-2010, 08:38 PM
Unfair is besmirching a dead man's reputation based upon less than nothing.

Mike


I haven't yet read the thread in question, thanks for the links Ben, but surely the above statement is illogical?

I presume you are annoyed that Topping's reputation is being besmirched? How can his reputation be besmirched by people who are arguing he was NOT synonymous with Hutchinson? Surely those who disagree with you are doing precisely the opposite and exonerating Mr Topping from any involvement with the case, let alone the implication of being a murderer. It is you who are suggesting, or rather insisting, they were one and the same, and if you are happy he was merely an innocent witness, then that's your choice. Others who think he was not Toppy are obviously not accusing Toppy of anything. Their conclusion is that he was not involved at all.

Secondly, you have made a fallacious point regarding Toppy and Hutchinson's fathers having the same profession. Toppy's father can be tracked down. Hutchinson, however, is still an unknown quantity...and if we don't know who he was, how can we possibly know who his father was, or what his father's profession was?

The Good Michael
10-30-2010, 08:11 AM
Secondly, you have made a fallacious point regarding Toppy and Hutchinson's fathers having the same profession. Toppy's father can be tracked down. Hutchinson, however, is still an unknown quantity...and if we don't know who he was, how can we possibly know who his father was, or what his father's profession was?

Hutchinson isn't an unknown quantity. He is Toppy and he had the same occupation as his father. Some of us know this. Others ignore it.

As far as besmirching a dead man's name, since Toppy is Hutchinson, he is being condemned, and it is this sort of thing that keeps his relatives from coming forth with any information, anecdotal or otherwise that they may have. Nothing fallacious here, Sunflower, to people who know what's probable.

Mike

sunflower
10-30-2010, 12:18 PM
Hutchinson isn't an unknown quantity. He is Toppy and he had the same occupation as his father. Some of us know this. Others ignore it.

As far as besmirching a dead man's name, since Toppy is Hutchinson, he is being condemned, and it is this sort of thing that keeps his relatives from coming forth with any information, anecdotal or otherwise that they may have. Nothing fallacious here, Sunflower, to people who know what's probable.

Mike

Hi Mike

you left out an important qualifier. In your opinion.

I haven't read any books which state categorically that Hutchinson has been identified as Topping. Maybe there is something in the pipeline but I don't know. If this is as solid a fact as you appear to accept, there surely would be something in print about it?

And, as I said, nobody who is refusing the identification of Topping and Hutchinson can possibly be accusing Topping of anything. Hutchinson is still an unknown quantity, and as such, no reputation is being besmirched as far as I can see.

Regards

Rubyretro
10-30-2010, 02:07 PM
Can't we keep the Toppy/Hutchinson discussion on an appropriate thread ??

Nonetheless, for the sake of the record, once again, since you are talking about probability Mike:

1)-George Hutchinson was described as being around age 28. He may have been younger (we don't have a birth certificate), and looked older than his years due to rough childhood, bad diet, and hard work -granted. It is probable that he was asked his age by Press and Police though.

Toppy was aged 22 in 1888 -something that we know for sure. He had been brought up in a family home headed by a father with a stable profession (plumbing), in what must have been a pleasant wooded suburb (built up in the 1880s) during his childhood. I doubt that he lacked good food, since money was forthcoming enough that he was able to go to school for longer than many.

Conclusion : it is not probable that 22 year old Toppy would be confused with a 28 year old with a history of hard physical work and lodging houses behind him.

2) George Hutchinson is described as having done various jobs, which include Groom, humping barrels in a pub, and precarious labouring jobs.
Whilst the press may have misreported, it is likely they didn't, since these were not details that would sex up their accounts. 'Groom' was a semi-skilled job in itself,
and not one that 'just anyone' would be employed in without experience (they typically started about aged 10 by mucking out stables).

Toppy was the son of a plumber, and became a plumber himself, for which he would have had to undergo an apprenticeship. He was a bright person who became successfully
self-employed and was "rarely or never out of work". Whilst he may have undertaken other jobs in the East End, it is unlikely that he didn't have enough experience of plumbing from his father to get plumbing work (even imagining that he wasn't yet fully qualified). How would he have had the time (being only 22) to have been a groom, and the rest, and why would he describe himself as an 'unemployed Groom ' and not an 'un-employed Plumber'? If he knew plumbing -a better paid and better considered job', why would he need to hump beer barrels, and why would he not describe himself as a plumber to Press and Police (especially as this would raise his standing in their eyes).

Conclusion : The job histories of the two men have nothing in common.

3) A contemporary drawing of Hutchinson and a photograph of a Toppy do not look in the least bit alike. Although it is true that there is a large age difference between the two, it is generally possible to pick someone out in a phograph taken in their youth..adults do not change their basic bone structure and features.

Conclusion: pictures of the two men show nothing in common.

4) Leaving aside the inconclusive appraisals of their signatures, and whilst George Hutchinson is a very common name (and may even have not been the name on the witness's birth certificate), George William Topping Hutchinson is not so common. It would be expected that the witness would put his full name to a Police Statement If we assume that Toppy was just an innocent witness, why would he not sign his full name, in the normal fashion, to a legal document ?

Conclusion: George Hutchinson was not named George William Topping Hutchinson.

5) The link between Hutchison the witness, and Toppy would appear to hinge on the testimony of the latter's son , Reg. We know that many people later gave themselves a
role in the Ripper story which were untrue, but based on contemporary accounts (Nathan Shine, being just one example). Toppy had a particular reason to remember the details of the case, since he shared a name with a witness (just as Shine had things in common with Israel Schwartz). We know that Reg was offered a share of the profits of Fairclough's book, if it were a success, and therefore had a motive for a good story. The Reg/Toppy story of 'Randolph Churchill' is very good for a book, but does not stand up. One indication that Reg/Fairclough drew information from research on the Ripper Case, and not from real memory, is that they repeated the surely erroneous assertion that Hutchinson the witness was paid a large amount of money by the Police for his help -although we know that he was rapidly discredited in reality, and the 'urban myth' of the same amount of money being paid was also ascribed to Mathew Packer.

Conclusion: Toppy's story (or/and Reg's) does not hold water.

General conclusion: given that analysis of the signatures would seem to be 50/50...and taking all the other points into consideration...the overwhelming probability is that Hutchinson and Toppy were NOT the same person.

Anyone who want's to answer this, I suggest that they start a new thread...

The Good Michael
10-30-2010, 02:59 PM
Ruby,

You have taken this thread off topic again and again, and then you warn others not to go off topic, but you do again. Not very bright, I'd suggest.

The original topic involves a new theory. My signature post was only to point Abby to another thread, yet you Hutchinsonites, the few that remain obstinately attached to nothing, pop up like gophers, only I don't have a mallet big enough to hit those enormous rodent heads sending them back to their burrows. Carry on.

Mike

Garry Wroe
10-30-2010, 04:56 PM
For the sake of clarification, it should be pointed out that Hutchinson’s date of birth has yet to be established, meaning that the claim that he was twenty-eight years old at the time of the murders lacks anything in the way of substantiation. This, of course, signifies that the alleged connection between Hutchinson and the twenty-eight year old barman of the same name is entirely speculative.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

harry
10-31-2010, 06:09 AM
Toppy or not,plumber or not,ripper or not,why would he take an eight or nine inch knife to Romford?hardly the tool of any trade.

Rubyretro
10-31-2010, 11:08 AM
Toppy or not,plumber or not,ripper or not,why would he take an eight or nine inch knife to Romford?hardly the tool of any trade.

Whoever the Ripper was, I feel sure that he had a good reason for carrying a knife without arousing suspicion.

Using my imagination, I can think of several possible reasons why GH might have a knife.

He was described as an unemployed Groom (which may, or may not be true).
In which case he would have a farrier's knife or hooving knife. I tried googling 19th century knives of this type and there are lots of models, including with 8" blades for the long , straight, double edged type. Interestingly, there are plenty of folding knives with several blades (I think that it has been suggested that the Ripper may have had more than one knife). a Groom might need to cut through rope and leather, and cut up dead animals, trim hooves or perform a fast caesarian or quickly kill an animal that was badly injured.

He may have been in the army (he was described as having a 'military appearence' ), in which case he may have brought back a 'souvenir' from the colonies. Bob Hinton mentions in his book the fashion for soldiers coming back with zulu spearheads, which they then attached to a short handle, but I expect that a knife could be brought back from any of the colonies. As he didn't have a fixed home, he would have to carry his possessions with him.

Hutch did labouring jobs, and these were probably not confined to the building trade (we know that he humped barrels in a pub). With the proximity of all those docks and warehouses, it is a good guess that he would take any jobs going in those places. I think that crates would be lashed down on boats, and tied together, and a big sharp knife would be needed to cut through rope sometimes, or cut through sacking and open crates. I can't imagine how a labourer would not be equipped for eventualities of this type.

Even if the first two ideas are too wildly speculative, the last one seems logical.

harry
10-31-2010, 11:57 AM
Ruby,
But if Hutchinson was the ripper,I would imagine that he was by that date,mentally building himself up for another killing,and that this compulsion had been prevalent in his thinking for days beforehand.The knife therefor would be seen by him as a weapon.Why take a weapon to Romford?

Rubyretro
10-31-2010, 12:11 PM
Ruby,
But if Hutchinson was the ripper,I would imagine that he was by that date,mentally building himself up for another killing,and that this compulsion had been prevalent in his thinking for days beforehand.The knife therefor would be seen by him as a weapon.Why take a weapon to Romford?

Because he would probably have to take all his meagre possessions with him,
and something as useful as a knife would soon be stolen if he left it somewhere, and if he was looking for work he might need his knife (even if it was also seen as a weapon by him ). Also, he may have always planned to come back early from Romford to try and kill MJK.

harry
11-01-2010, 05:11 AM
Ruby,
I am trying to visualise Hutchinson in the role of serial killer,w ho by the time of the Kelly murder,had gone several weeks without killing,and was feeling a compulsion to kill again.
Would finding work,and travelling a long distance to find it take precedence?I just don't think so,but of course I could be wrong
As to taking tools of trade,if he was a plumber,where was his plumbing tools?

richardnunweek
11-01-2010, 11:54 AM
Hi.
We should all stop this mindless character assasination of one George Hutchinson, alias Topping [ to some of us].
We are talking about the year 1888, and we simply have no idea what this gentleman was about, as a young man of 22.
Clearly he was not living at home, apparently by residing at the Victoria home he was a tradesman, or a man of regular employment, as this establishment was vetted by the police, and men of irregular habits were not entertained.
Just because he was not a full time plumber in 1888, does not imply that Topping was not the witness GH. I was initally a bookmakers clerk in the late 60s, then from the early 70s had many jobs which included labouring, factory assembly worker, and even a tannery worker, before going back to my roots in the betting industry, where I remain today.
It is somewhat annoying, when it is suggested that Hutchinson was not a man of regular employment, therefore would not have received any compensation from the police, when a resident of that lodging house, would be a non resident very quickly if his ability to pay was impaired .
Regards Richard.

Ben
11-02-2010, 05:23 PM
Hi Richard,

You’ve just gone and repeated the fallacy that Sunflower sensibly cautioned against: if we don’t accept that Toppy was Hutchinson, we cannot possibly be guilty of the character assassination of Toppy. We just don’t believe he was involved in the events of 1888. This really shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

“We are talking about the year 1888, and we simply have no idea what this gentleman was about, as a young man of 22.”
Who?

Toppy or the real “witness” who introduced himself as George Hutchinson?

Again, for those of us who don’t believe they were the same person, there’s no reason to believe that the statement-maker was “a young man of 22”.

“Clearly he was not living at home, apparently by residing at the Victoria home he was a tradesman, or a man of regular employment, as this establishment was vetted by the police, and men of irregular habits were not entertained.”

That can’t be true, Richard, because we know that Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was both a resident of the Victoria Home and without regular employment. If there was any mutual exclusivity between these two claims, Abberline would almost certainly have known about it.

“Just because he was not a full time plumber in 1888, does not imply that Topping was not the witness GH.”

The point is that the 1888 Hutchinson didn’t refer to a history of plumbing at all. According to various articles that appeared in the newspapers, Hutchinson was a groom by trade now working as a labourer - the strong implication being that he had nothing to do with plumbing at that stage. It is very difficult to accept that he could then have transformed himself into a fully-fledged plumber less than three years later. But all this was discussed on the thread I provided a link to in my latest post to Mike, and if you read through it properly, you might understand that using yourself as a comparison case doesn’t really make sense.

“It is somewhat annoying, when it is suggested that Hutchinson was not a man of regular employment, therefore would not have received any compensation from the police”

Nobody has ruled out the possibility that he received some sort of compensation. What I have ruled out is the suggestion that he was paid five times a “salary” he wasn’t even earning, but since nobody brought up that issue on this thread, there’s really no reason for you to get annoyed.

Best regards,
Ben

Abby Normal
11-02-2010, 05:38 PM
Toppy or not,plumber or not,ripper or not,why would he take an eight or nine inch knife to Romford?hardly the tool of any trade.

Hi Harry
Good point. perhaps, since it was a bit of a journey, he took a bag with him containing his belongings, including a knife. Perhaps he come back sooner than he said and had time to get it from somewhere. or perhaps he did not go to Romford that day.

Sally
11-02-2010, 09:41 PM
This is interesting, and raises a practical point.

If, say, he was carrying a large knife or two about with him, and living at the Victoria Home; would that make things difficult for him from the privacy perspective?

If he was a killer, and living in what amounted to a public place; then I imagine that would have presented a few problems. I expect men carrying knives then didn't quite have the connotations it would today; but I think a bloody knife, clothes, etc, would have aroused suspicion. Granted, there may not have been much, but a bit risky, all the same.

Going further with this, if he was a trophy taker, what would he have done with the trophies?

He could have paid for a private cabin, maybe - how much would that have been - sixpence?

By coincidence the same amount that Kelly asked him to lend her, according to him.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just wondering how it would work if he was a serial killer with a messy MO living in a common lodging house. In fact, it seems quite likely to me that the killer - whoever he was - lived or closely associated with such places.

Scorpio
11-02-2010, 10:13 PM
This is interesting, and raises a practical point.

If, say, he was carrying a large knife or two about with him, and living at the Victoria Home; would that make things difficult for him from the privacy perspective?

If he was a killer, and living in what amounted to a public place; then I imagine that would have presented a few problems. I expect men carrying knives then didn't quite have the connotations it would today; but I think a bloody knife, clothes, etc, would have aroused suspicion. Granted, there may not have been much, but a bit risky, all the same.

Going further with this, if he was a trophy taker, what would he have done with the trophies?

He could have paid for a private cabin, maybe - how much would that have been - sixpence?

By coincidence the same amount that Kelly asked him to lend her, according to him.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just wondering how it would work if he was a serial killer with a messy MO living in a common lodging house. In fact, it seems quite likely to me that the killer - whoever he was - lived or closely associated with such places.

Why is it likely?. I can think of few things as certain as lack of privacy in the post homicide phase to have resulted in the killers apprehension. Removing blood from skin and shiny surfaces is relatively easy, but clothing is different. Hiding stained clothing is difficult in cramped circumstances especially where the standard of hygiene is poor, and would have no doubt resulted in the killer looking doubly suspicious.

Ben
11-03-2010, 02:43 AM
Why would he get his clothes stained, Scorpio?

The preponderance of medical evidence suggests that his clothes would not have been stained to any appreciable degree, and in any case, providing his external garments (i.e. his coat or jacket) weren't visibly affected, there was no reason for any fellow lodger to notice any suspicious-looking gunk. As Sally pointed out, it was possible at some establishments to procure a private cabin or cubicle for a couple of extra pence. This would have provided, at the very least, a shield from prying eyes.

Doss house dwellers would take their sub-standard meat victuals home for cooking, and in the case of the Victoria Home in particular, the kitchen was situated below street level and was not patrolled by a doorman (who was only interested in checking tickets for the bedrooms above). So it really wouldn't have entailed much if the killer wished to take home his meaty treats.

Best regards,
Ben

richardnunweek
11-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Hi,
I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

Rubyretro
11-03-2010, 01:21 PM
Hi,
I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning...

Rubyretro
11-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Rubyretro;153150]I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning..
and the light outside her room was out at that time, so he could stand in that tiny dark passage and make sure that no one was about before venturing into Dorset Street..

Rubyretro
11-03-2010, 01:47 PM
Hi,
I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

Rubyretro;153150]I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning..

Versa
06-07-2011, 11:13 PM
to my mind its a very 'neat theory... When I first started looking for a Ripper suspect my first port of call was witnesses.

GH certainly was by his own admission one of the last people to see MJK alive and his admitted actions at the time were slightly strange, hanging around Millers Court in the middle of the night WAS a suspicious thing to do no matter which way you look at it...

For me

1. GH was living in the right area (the direction the killer was heading in after both Stride and Eddows)

2. He was acting strangely by loitering for an hour(?) outside a murder victims room.

3. His description of the 'suspect' was slightly outlandish, I've pored over many a photograph of Whitechapel doing restorations and the description he gave wasn't a common one for the area at that time.

4. For me at least the Toppy/GH issue is unresolved and regardless of that it doesn't actually matter a great deal if Toppy was THE George Hutchinson... Yes people can shout about his name being 'besmirched' but the bottom line is somebodys name will be besmirched by this and if our fear of besmirching someone's name stops us researching them then we might as well give up now....

5. Personally I think the name George Hutchinson stands a very good chance of being an alias.

I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

Wickerman
06-08-2011, 05:56 AM
I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

So if you read Sarah Lewis's description of the man deemed to have been Hutchinson on watch at Millers Court, and you think Hutchinson 'might' be the typical serial killer, you must think he is not only Kelly's killer, but Jack the Ripper.

Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

How far do you want to go with this....

Regards, Jon S.

Versa
06-09-2011, 12:13 AM
Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

Hi, is there a description of Hutchinson somewhere? I'll have a look tonight, I haven't seen it yet :/

harry
06-09-2011, 01:41 PM
As all witness sightings can be viewed as possibly a little inacurate,give or take an inch or two ,and Hutchinson might well fit in with sightings by witnesses.But so might many others.His own stated description might, by it's apparant attention to detail,be construed as not fitting the norm as to inacuracy,lead one to believe it deserves to be viewed in a different manner,than say Long or Brown.

Wickerman
06-10-2011, 04:07 AM
Hi, is there a description of Hutchinson somewhere? I'll have a look tonight, I haven't seen it yet :/

Everywhere, ....he wore disguises, don-cha-know!
:laugh4:


...His own stated description might, by it's apparant attention to detail,be construed as not fitting the norm as to inacuracy,lead one to believe it deserves to be viewed in a different manner,than say Long or Brown.

Yes Harry, just because Lewis, Kennedy & Paumier never mentioned spats, tie-pin or watch-chain doesn't mean he was not wearing them. That which is not stated is negative evidence, and all historian know negative evidence is no evidence at all.
The detail in Hutchinson's statement is quite consistent between the press & police and suggests a higher level of accuracy.

Regards, Jon S.

Ben
06-13-2011, 03:24 AM
The detail in Hutchinson's statement is quite consistent between the press & police and suggests a higher level of accuracy.

Not if he can't even have seen the some of the "detail", it doesn't.

It merely suggests that he remembered what he lied about.

Kennedy and Paumier were bogus witnesses, and should not, under any circumstances, be considered viable "Jack"-spotters.

Abby Normal
06-13-2011, 07:49 PM
So if you read Sarah Lewis's description of the man deemed to have been Hutchinson on watch at Millers Court, and you think Hutchinson 'might' be the typical serial killer, you must think he is not only Kelly's killer, but Jack the Ripper.

Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

How far do you want to go with this....

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon
I think one of the most consistant aspects of all the various descriptions are that the "suspect" was of below average height. If you beleive that Sarah's loiterer and GH were one in the same (as i do in most probability) then GH was also "short".

Wickerman
06-14-2011, 01:30 AM
Not if he can't even have seen the some of the "detail", it doesn't.

You continue to change an "if" into a certainty, yet in truth you have no idea.


It merely suggests that he remembered what he lied about.


Unsubstantiated, as always.


Kennedy and Paumier were bogus witnesses,

More indignant opinions?, Like you would know, right?


and should not, under any circumstances, be considered viable "Jack"-spotters.

Whoever he was, he existed, and he was a nuisance to women, so he is a viable suspect. Thats the way to approach it.

Regards, Jon S.

Ben
06-14-2011, 05:27 PM
No, Jon, that's not the way to approach it.

It certainly wasn't the way the police approached it.

We only have it on "Mrs. Paumier's" dubious authority that the man existed, and the reference to him only cropped up in a press article that appeared on 10th November amid many other notoriously bogus claims that appeared in the press at that time. There is no evidence that the police had any contact with this woman, and she certainly didn't appear at the inquest. Nor did Mrs. Kennedy, who just stole from another witness' genuine account.

Regards,
Ben

Abby Normal
06-14-2011, 06:29 PM
to my mind its a very 'neat theory... When I first started looking for a Ripper suspect my first port of call was witnesses.

GH certainly was by his own admission one of the last people to see MJK alive and his admitted actions at the time were slightly strange, hanging around Millers Court in the middle of the night WAS a suspicious thing to do no matter which way you look at it...

For me

1. GH was living in the right area (the direction the killer was heading in after both Stride and Eddows)

2. He was acting strangely by loitering for an hour(?) outside a murder victims room.

3. His description of the 'suspect' was slightly outlandish, I've pored over many a photograph of Whitechapel doing restorations and the description he gave wasn't a common one for the area at that time.

4. For me at least the Toppy/GH issue is unresolved and regardless of that it doesn't actually matter a great deal if Toppy was THE George Hutchinson... Yes people can shout about his name being 'besmirched' but the bottom line is somebodys name will be besmirched by this and if our fear of besmirching someone's name stops us researching them then we might as well give up now....

5. Personally I think the name George Hutchinson stands a very good chance of being an alias.

I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

Hi Versa
Thanks for your comments.

George Hutchinson:

-Lived in the immediate vicinity
-Places himself at the murder sight on the night of MK's murder(corraberated by Sarah Lewis)
-Admitted he Knew MK , a known prostitute, and therefor probably knew/mingled with other prostitutes.
-Gave a highly improbable detailed description of a "suspect"
-skipped the inquest

also:
-Was out of work-was this the trigger/stressor that started the killing?
-Along with the GSG and the shouting of "lipski" was the only originator of evidence that implicated a jew.
-matched majority of witness description in size and age and nationality
-probably knew whitechapel like the back of his hand


I think that in his mind (if GH was JtR) he knew he was seen well for the first time the night of the double event and along with the fact that those witnesses were jewish, was the catalyst that led to the implication of jews with the GSG and jewish A-man.

Malcolm X
09-16-2011, 03:05 PM
.
4. For me at least the Toppy/GH issue is unresolved and regardless of that it doesn't actually matter a great deal if Toppy was THE George Hutchinson... Yes people can shout about his name being 'besmirched' but the bottom line is somebodys name will be besmirched by this and if our fear of besmirching someone's name stops us researching them then we might as well give up now....

..

to me it does matter if Toppy is GH, because this person was a loving family man, from what i know ( but i probably dont know enough about him yet)

because when you realise what JTR did to Eddowes/Kelly, then GH would have been a nasty piece of work and more like W.Bury/ Chapman. he would definitely have appeared strange and disturbing to anybody that knew him.

unfortunately, we dont know anything much about GH personality, but at the very least he would behave like an odd ball.... none of this is mentioned

i dont think this GH that we all know is JTR, my guess is that he is either telling the truth or he wasn't there !

GH definitely appears as guilty as hell, but then you would do if you were lieing so badly, plus he's not exactly a rocket scientist either; so he's not smart enough to lie well. Abberline dismissed him later on, so he was probably lieing.

but, he might also be telling the truth, he simply saw something so outrageous that it wasn't believed later on as time passed, so the LA DE DA Jew might indeed have been an accurate sighting, because stranger things in life do happen !

it's very complicated, but this GH is either someone else or he's not JTR, because i can not see a ``stay at home family guy`` being JTR.... not even close!

anyone who is a strong believer in H being JTR, can forget researching the crimes, because anyone could have done this, he fits perfectly, only look very closely at his home life, because this will be the biggest clue of all

but my guess is that this has already been done and nothing has turned up, or it would already have been mentioned here

GregBaron
09-16-2011, 05:39 PM
George Hutchinson:

-Lived in the immediate vicinity
-Places himself at the murder sight on the night of MK's murder(corraberated by Sarah Lewis)
-Admitted he Knew MK , a known prostitute, and therefor probably knew/mingled with other prostitutes.
-Gave a highly improbable detailed description of a "suspect"
-skipped the inquest

also:
-Was out of work-was this the trigger/stressor that started the killing?
-Along with the GSG and the shouting of "lipski" was the only originator of evidence that implicated a jew.
-matched majority of witness description in size and age and nationality
-probably knew whitechapel like the back of his hand


I think that in his mind (if GH was JtR) he knew he was seen well for the first time the night of the double event and along with the fact that those witnesses were jewish, was the catalyst that led to the implication of jews with the GSG and jewish A-man.


Mr. Normal threw down some nice stuff there y’all. GH may not be the ripper but there are some circumstantial eye openers. As for the contention that JTR couldn’t be a normal bloke, I think the Ab-Normal one (no pun intended) also mentioned other serials that had seemingly typical lives. Most are loners however, and I expect the ripper was also, but it’s not a given.

IF you think GH could be Lawende’s rough sailor and he definitely could be BS man, I think, then we’re onto something. We don’t know if he was fair of mustache and as I recall all we have are newspaper sketches, in these he looks like a fat faced guy without a mustache (Again from memory).

As for Hutch/Toppy, I do think it harder to troll in the middle of the night and then come home with blood and guts to a houseful of wife/kids but again, like everything else, it can’t be ruled out.

I also don’t think it a huge stretch to infer that the ripper was a Jew hating Gentile as again, there are compelling circumstances…


Greg

Rubyretro
09-16-2011, 07:39 PM
because when you realise what JTR did to Eddowes/Kelly, then GH would have been a nasty piece of work and more like W.Bury/ Chapman. he would definitely have appeared strange and disturbing to anybody that knew him.

unfortunately, we dont know anything much about GH personality, but at the very least he would behave like an odd ball.... none of this is mentioned

This struck a chord with me, and I absolutely don't agree with you.

I was thinking of the murders of Jo Yeates in Bristol last Christmas, and Sian
(can't remember her surname) in Swindon , last Summer.

The first person pulled in by the Police in the Case of Jo Yeates was her Landlord. The papers went to town on the poor bloke, inferring his 'guilt,' in advance of any arrest , on the basis that he was 'an odd ball' who had once had 'blue hair', was 'a batchelor', 'read poetry' (I think that he taught literature), and sent his washing home to his mum, while she was alive.

I remember being horrified by the treatment of this man, by the media (I think that they probably ruined his life), and trying to argue with my Mother
that the character assassination of Jo Yeates' Landlord was based on no evidence at all (that's what debating on Casebook does for you !), and her reply to me was "But he is an 'Oddball' (cased closed for her).

So I had a secret satisfaction when the bloke arrested for the murder (and not a 'crime of passion' -( this man did his best to hide the body, and all traces, and keep silent during the search), was an architect (my Father and Brother are both architects), with a regular girlfriend and doing normal things like visiting close family at Christmas.

Sian was killed by a man who probably was a Serial Killer (he had killed a random woman before, and we might find out about other victims at his trial).
Her murderer was a 'family man', and a taxi driver who had probably driven
thousands of people without them finding him 'strange and disturbing'.

GH definitely appears as guilty as hell, but then you would do if you were lieing so badly, plus he's not exactly a rocket scientist either; so he's not smart enough to lie well. Abberline dismissed him later on, so he was probably lieing.
Once again: Danilo Restivo. Not smart and not a 'rocket scientist'. But smart enough to 'double think', smart enough to construct an alibi, and smart enough to convince the Police of his innocence during his initial interview (as a witness).

it's very complicated, but this GH is either someone else or he's not JTR, because i can not see a ``stay at home family guy`` being JTR.... not even close!
I don't think that Hutch was Toppy, however Hutch needn't have appeared as as 'strange and disturbing', nor an ''Oddball' to the people that knew him, nor to the Police.

Abby Normal
09-16-2011, 08:37 PM
to me it does matter if Toppy is GH, because this person was a loving family man, from what i know ( but i probably dont know enough about him yet)

because when you realise what JTR did to Eddowes/Kelly, then GH would have been a nasty piece of work and more like W.Bury/ Chapman. he would definitely have appeared strange and disturbing to anybody that knew him.

unfortunately, we dont know anything much about GH personality, but at the very least he would behave like an odd ball.... none of this is mentioned

i dont think this GH that we all know is JTR, my guess is that he is either telling the truth or he wasn't there !

GH definitely appears as guilty as hell, but then you would do if you were lieing so badly, plus he's not exactly a rocket scientist either; so he's not smart enough to lie well. Abberline dismissed him later on, so he was probably lieing.

but, he might also be telling the truth, he simply saw something so outrageous that it wasn't believed later on as time passed, so the LA DE DA Jew might indeed have been an accurate sighting, because stranger things in life do happen !

it's very complicated, but this GH is either someone else or he's not JTR, because i can not see a ``stay at home family guy`` being JTR.... not even close!

anyone who is a strong believer in H being JTR, can forget researching the crimes, because anyone could have done this, he fits perfectly, only look very closely at his home life, because this will be the biggest clue of all

but my guess is that this has already been done and nothing has turned up, or it would already have been mentioned here

Hi Malcom
For me the whole Hutch/Toppy debate is irrelevant. There have been many, many serial killers who appeared on the surface to have had a "normal" family and personal life. Actually, one could suggest that it was this appearance of normalcy that fooled his victims into thinking he was safe to go with into a dark alley way-even at the height of the ripper scare. And if GH was the ripper his apparent normalcy or "mask of sanity" as GB put it may help also explain why the police (Abberline) beleived his story initially and never suspected him of being JtR.

Rubyretro
09-16-2011, 08:41 PM
Certainly, Abby- and Greg.

Wickerman
09-17-2011, 03:02 AM
I don't think that Hutch was Toppy, however Hutch needn't have appeared as as 'strange and disturbing', nor an ''Oddball' to the people that knew him, nor to the Police.

I don't know about Hutch being Toppy, I don't think he was a killer though.
It should pretty-well go without saying these days that Serial Killers do show a public face when required, and a private face when they choose. They don't need to have a split personality. I suspect this is part of their make-up in that they know what they do is wrong.

Have you heard of our own recent Serial Killer in Ontario (Can), Colonel Russell Williams (ex-Colonel now).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams

They called Williams a true Jekyll & Hyde, Commander of Canada's largest Air Force Base by day, sexual predator by night.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/873244--col-russell-williams-a-serial-killer-like-none-police-have-seen?bn=1

"Williams took thousands of explicit photographs of himself at crime scenes — wearing women's and girls' lingerie, and masturbating on their beds — which he put in a complex file folder system with a date stamp.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/18/col-williams-court-1018.html

Williams demonstrated signs of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), being meticulous over minute details which only had importance to him in his predator phase. Apparently, his ever-loving wife who he doted on had no idea of his other persona.

Regards, Jon S.

Malcolm X
09-17-2011, 02:47 PM
i do not disagree with any of you and this is the problem i'm having, because Peter Sutcliffe appeared normal as well, as did Ted Bundy etc etc.

But the problem with GH as the ripper is, no more Ripper murders whilst he's still around and he fits the profile of a ``stay at home loving family man`` a bit too well..... it looks like JTR left Whitechapel, or died etc, the murders are stopping too quickly, the storm as passed with the death of Kelly!

to raise my suspicion i would expect to read about GH:- ``he was a loving family man, but had to do a lot of travelling as part of his employment, he was away from home quite often, but was always with us at Xmas``...... something like this, i guess right now that we dont know enough about GH.

one of the problems with GH, is that his statement looks so suspicious, in so many ways, but it could also be the truth, i personally see his statement as that of JTR, because he has stalked her perfectly for a break in later on that night. in fact, i can see him killing her easily....

but, it's not him acting normal at home, it's his boring 8 to 5 stay at home lifestyle, that tends to rule him out.

i can make him fit as JTR easily, but something tells me ``sods law``, that it's not as easy as this, my guess is if this GH is JTR then the killer is definitely TOPPY, because the signatures look too close to me.

i sound confused............. yea' i am, who isn't !