George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

So now here's the nitty-gritty for you. Either Hutch thought they might have something incriminating on him (beyond the sighting) that could have got him arrested and charged, or he didn't

Hutchinson had most to fear, in my view, from the possibility of being paraded before other witnesses from previous murders. If Lewis were to recognise or identify him, only for a link with with one or more other witnesses to have been established (Lawende? Schwartz? Possibly even Ada Wilson) then he'd be in trouble, but what Hutchinson didn't know is that only one witness was apparently being used in identity parades and that, despite Lawende's detailed description being published after it was initially suppressed at the inquest, he doubted whether he'd recognise the suspect again.

We'd therefore have a legitimate and understandable fear on the part of Hutchinson that he wasn't know wasn't well-founded. He'd have adequate grounds for "truly believing" that the poo could potentially have hot the fan.

But that's only pursuant to the premise that he came forward out of self-preservation which, as we learrn from other cases, need not have been the only motivating factor.

There are plenty of other reasons for killers coming forward under false guises; bravado, insecurity, an obsession with law enforcement, a desire to keep appraised of police progress, an intention to play the co-operative hand to neutralize police suspicions should they arrive later. In other words, it's equally possible that he wanted to "spike their guns in advance" - to appropriate a phrase coined by murderer Nathan Leopold - thus ensuring him with a degree of real or imagined security if and when his name or description cropped up in a "suspect" capacity as somebody seen near the crime scene, or who knew one of the victims (or whatever). "It obviously wasn't me. I contacted you. I was helpful".

and presumably the plan was to distance themselves from the scene

Nope, most of the examples I've mentioned involved offenders coming up with excuses that "legitimately" explained their association with a crime or crime scene.

I'm not asking for a case where the circumstances are identical, but I would like one that mirrors the actual danger Hutch would have believed he was in, of being arrested and charged with the murders.

Caz, I don't have some barometer for assessing "belief". If they came forward out of self-preservation, the danger may have been real, semi-real, or imagined. That wouldn't prevent the fear or the "belief" from being the same. And again, we'd both be assuming that self-preservation was the sole motivating factor in any pre-emptive move on the part of an offender, serial of otherwise.

There's a difference between "having" something to fear and fearing it anyway.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Caz,
That hits the nail on the head.
Why oh why can we not simply accept that George Hutchinson was just a observant witness, and pondered throughout that weekend if he should put himself in ' The frame' so to speak by calling at the station.
One must remember, the police and the vigilante committee , after the kelly murder were a hungry pack of wolves, and it would have taken a lot of courage to present oneself at the scene, armed with a description of what could be 'Jack The Ripper'.
Hutchinson admitts that he was encouraged by a fellow resident at the Victoria home to go to the police, also he states that he told a police officer on sunday, who dismissed him.
I have never seen Gh as anything more then a observant witness, to be honest all these asumptions of foul play stems from Bobs excellent 'From Hell', before that he was looked upon as obviously someone with a remarkable memory, which was admittingly doubted by some, but not the witchhunt that
has manifested itself over the past few years.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

Good points. I'd also expect that a man who could concoct a bald-faced lie, and tell his story well-enough to have Abberline believe it, and to be described as a man with military bearing, and at such a young age, to have a history of incidents, or some recorded run-ins with the law. He was just a common laborer, supposedly. Where did he get this ability? If he was the Ripper and did the others, then I can see it.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

A Push-Me Pull-You?

Morning Ben,

I get your argument that other offenders have come forward to try and deflect suspicion from themselves and therefore Hutch could, in theory, have been one such offender.

I also get your argument that he felt that not coming forward might result in the police suspecting Lewis's loiterer and tracking him down.

But here is where the theory breaks down for me, because you are always telling us that even if the police had suspected him they would not have had sufficient grounds to arrest or charge him and all they could have done was to watch him in case they could catch him in the act.

In short, according to your own argument, even if he had failed to come forward, that would merely have given the police grounds to suspect him, as someone who was seen lurking near the crime scene - but not enough to arrest or charge him with anything. And that's assuming they managed to find him and then prove he was there - presumably by showing that Lewis couldn't possibly have been mistaken.

So now here's the nitty-gritty for you. Either Hutch thought they might have something incriminating on him (beyond the sighting) that could have got him arrested and charged, or he didn't.

If he did, then going forward and admitting he was lurking for a full three-quarters of an hour seems unaccountably dim. If he didn't, why go forward at all? It's a subtle point, but it surely makes him different from your other offenders who only went forward in desperation, when they truly believed the poo would hit the fan if they didn't try something drastic, and presumably the plan was to distance themselves from the scene, not admit they were there so they could 'witness' someone else entering the murder room.

I'm not asking for a case where the circumstances are identical, but I would like one that mirrors the actual danger Hutch would have believed he was in, of being arrested and charged with the murders.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi all,

Most of the witnesses regarding Mary Kelly were interviewed Friday afternoon. They would have recalled events within a relatively short time from when they occurred. This factor decreases the possibility that a watertight story could be fabricated by one of those witnesses, due to the short interval of time, and the lack of knowledge about other witness testimonies.

George Hutchinson came into the station Monday night...after the official inquest abruptly ended..and therefore had 4 days to fabricate a story. Plus the advantage of early statements by witnesses printed over the weekend. I think horsehoe pins and astrakan cuffs demonstrate he had given his statement some thought. And I personally believe he chose to place himself where Sarah Lewis said she saw someone looking into the court....as a means of validating his being there at all.

Best regards all.....hope that helps Ben.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Half a dozen of one and six of another as Toby Charles would say. Your suggestion is about equal in my book... but only just.

Mike

[Ben]

Agreed, Mike, I don't believe the police and Hutchinson worked together to concoct a lie. That would dupe the general public, who would then bombard the police with sightings of a description that the police know to be fictional.

The police may have had their own biases, but I believe Hutchinson pandered to them. Rather than the police leading Hutchinson, I'd suggest that the reverse was true, with Hutchinson taking full advantage of whatever myths had begun to surface with regard to the ripper's likely image.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

If Hutch received five guineas, or five pounds, or 100 shillings (I said IF, Ben),
I don't think it would be because he helped create a lie for the police. I don't think it can be validly questioned (though I'm open for thoughts), that Lewis didn't see Hutchinson. She could have easily negated his testimony, if it was false, just by being more observant. Now, it is possible that the police knew she wasn't observant and that they could fit her story in with one that they made up for Hutch, but that is way too much effort I think. The idea of them questioning Hutch and, perhaps leading him a bit due to their own biases, makes more sense to me.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

But from the opposite site of the street, outside a lodging house full to bursting with people.

A full lodging house, JM, but by all accounts a very quiet street that night.

(Going with the "quiet minimum" vibe )

[jmenges]

He was staring up at the court as if watching or waiting for someone.

But from the opposite site of the street, outside a lodging house full to bursting with people.

We've gone through all this before, you and I, so I'll keep my opinions to a quiet minimum. I just wanted my views on the record for the sake of newish readers.



JM

[Ben]

Hi JM,

I like the possibility that Hutchinson wasn't ever there at all

Well, it beats "Hutchinson saw Mr. Astrakhan the Ripper", but I can't accept your observation about lodgers on Dorset Street. The man Lewis saw was clearly not interested in any lodging house. He was staring up at the court as if watching or waiting for someone. That becomes public knowledge, after which time Hutchinson comes forward and says that he was there at precisely that time watching or waiting for someone.

That's the coincidence.

Regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

I like the possibility that Hutchinson wasn't ever there at all. That he was a nutty publicity seeker who was fairly quickly dismissed, and Lewis seeing another of the 500+ men who occupied Dorset street standing outside a lodging house was just a coincidence.



JM

[Ben]

lack of evidence is the main reason. other killers may have, though this shows us nothing as serial killings & gruesome murders are all different.

Many of them have shared traits, Joel.

I'm not insisting that Hutchinson did anything, based on what other serial killers have done. Those examples merely serve the purpose of demolishing the assertion that "there's no way X or Y would have done this or that". Hutchinson came forward in response to Sarah Lewis' evidence, unless we're entertaining unrealistic coincidences. That hints very strongly at self-preservation. No, that doesn't automatically make him Jack the Ripper, but it makes him as viable a suspect as you're likely to encounter these days.

Hi Mike,

It's possible he was asked questions that led him to some of the answers because they were no longer in his memory.

The problem here is that Hutchinson didn't just claim to have memorized that which he couldn't possibly have noticed. He also repeated in several times upon request in more or less the same order, adding interesting new accessories along the way. This wouldn't happen if Hutchinson was being asked "leading" questions and was just a bit dreamy and forgetful, unless police and press asked precisely the same leading questions at the same period in the (seperate) interviews.

Hi Richard,

Why is it not simply a case of a young man aged 22 years reporting a sighting[ albeit a few days after the event] out of compassion /public duty?

Because we've no evidence that he was 22 years, and a three-day post-inquest arrival isn't consistent with someone coming forward out of either compassion or public duty.

a] Hutchinson simply had a eye for detail.

And a pig might have an eye for wings. Doesn't mean he can acheive the patently impossible.

We are reading to much into the lighting issue, it should be remembered that ones sight during that period was accustomed to the dim, as it was all that was present, and people would have described peoples attire as their eyes interpreted them

It wasn't dim. It was darkness until the pantomime villian surly Jew suspect passed for a fleeting moment or two beneath the gas lamp, and that fleeting moment or two didn't facillitate the purported level of recall.

The police with Hutchinsons help fabricated the description..

No, Rich. Then what happens if concerned members of the public come forward with sightings of similarly-dressed people? That's what would happen if the police knowingly circulated a false description.

The fact is...young George faded into the distance with the sum of five guineas in his pocket.

Please not this nonsense again, Richard.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Harry,
I am sure if Hutchinson was asked to assist the police in catching JTR, and he would not be in any trouble, infact may well be eligible for a reward if his assistance resulted in a arrest, would not have had a concious over assisting.
The fact is however, there was no capture, so young George faded into the distance with the sum of five guineas in his pocket.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike,
Section C.
Not quite how I interpreted it, more of 'We believe you may have seen JTR sir, we want you to sign to the effect that the man you saw fitted this description, so that it does not frighten the actual killer into altering his appearance'.
If C is considered, it would make sense would it not? to withold the real ID and issue the killer with a false sense.
And that would also explain the Famous Five guinea/Five pound/100 shilling alleged payment that Gh received, would it not?
Regards Richard.