A new suspect

[MysterySinger]

I would like to propose a new suspect as a possibility for JTR.

According to Christopher Scott's book "Will The Real Mary Kelly.." an FBI profile of JTR raised the possibility that the killer would be a white male, 28 to 36 years of age living or working in Whitechapel. He would have had an absent or passive father figure and a profession in which he could legally experience his destructive tendencies.

All of this would fit George Hutchinson who it is stated gave his profession as a groom and there is a discussion elsewhere as to who could be this George Hutchinson from the census and other records.

One candidate as George has the following history -
1855 born St George In The East (making him 33 in 1888)
1861 resident Stepney St Dunstan
1871 resident 9 Russell Street, Mile End Old Town
1874 marriage to Margaret Isabella Stevens at Christ Church (and shows occupation as Groom)
1881 resident 48 Spencer St, St George In The East (occupation BUTCHER)
1891 resident 81 Cosh's Buildings, Ratcliff (occupation BUTCHER)
1901 resident 15 Garney Street, St John's, Newington as a Boarder (occupation BUTCHER)
I believe this person to have died in 1908. I also believe his father, Thomas Hutchinson died in 1863 in Mile End and, therefore, from the age of around 8, George Hutchinson also was without his father.

The FBI profile is stacking up nicely, of course, but George was clearly a family man with 2 children (around 1888 anyway). The profile indicates that JTR would be a loner who had never married. His brother William appears to have remained un-married until around 1893 so would be 30 and single in 1888. .

His history -
1858 born Mile End Old Town (making him 30 in 1888)
1861 resident Stepney St Dunstan
1871 resident 9 Russell Street, Mile End Old Town
1881 not found on census as yet (his mother was resident in a public house in St Pancras).
1891 resident 1891 St George In The East with his mother
1893 he married

Why is he a suspect - he fits the profile, he was a butcher too and, if George Hutchinson is one and the same as I suspect, he could well have been protecting his brother by putting the Police off the scent as it were (or even acting as a look out for him?). George seems to have kept his real profession a secret.

In the Casebook entry referring to Butcher's Row there is also mention of a brother but not specified who's. This is the case for William Hutchinson as a possibility.

[GUT]

So

You think Hutch is a new suspect?

How many other men would fit this profile?

[MysterySinger]

There is only one who fits the profile and who's brother went to th
e police.

[YankeeSergeant]

devil's advocate

Allow me to play the devil's advocate here. While I have ruled very few of the suspects out in my mind, I debate your theory that George Hutchinson is the only suspect who fits the profile. Mainly I debate the theory because of the questions that arise.
Was Hutchinson at all of the murders? We don't know. We know he knew Mary Jane Kelly, but did he know the others? And which Hutchinson, the American who was suspected of killing a prostitute in Chicago in the same manner as the Whitechapel killings or the laborer and groom? While some serial killers try to inveigle themselves into the case, to my mind Hutchinson wasn't that sort. He was an informant, but I don't know that he would have come forward to offer help to the police if he was Jack the Ripper. Frederick Abberline questioned him and believed he was telling the truth. This far away, I would tend to take Abberline at his word. Having said that, let me state again that I don't know.

[Harry D]

I thought the OP was suggesting that this William Hutchinson was the Ripper and that, if his brother George from the census is the same as the Mary Kelly witness, perhaps he deliberately invented Astrakhan man to mislead the police and protect his bro.

Or did I read it wrong?

[MysterySinger]

I thought the OP was suggesting that this William Hutchinson was the Ripper and that, if his brother George from the census is the same as the Mary Kelly witness, perhaps he deliberately invented Astrakhan man to mislead the police and protect his bro.

Or did I read it wrong?

Harry D - you've got it spot on. George Hutchinson seemingly lied about his own profession (not a labourer and groom but a butcher and former groom!) and in the above theory also about Astrakhan Man in order to throw the Police off the scent. Many believe his recounting of the last sightings of MJK and who she was with were too detailed. Could he have been covering for his own brother?

[Wickerman]

... Many believe his recounting of the last sightings of MJK and who she was with were too detailed.

The problem with building your theory on what "other people think", is that these "other people" have no experience with taking witness testimony.

Would you ask a Dentist to tell you what is wrong with your car?

[Ben]

Go away please, Jon. Come back in a few days maybe.

Hi MysterySinger, and welcome to Casebook.

I would strongly recommend Garry Wroe's excellent book, Person or Persons Unknown?, which explores George Hutchinson's potential involvement in the ripper murders, and can be read in its entirety here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

He explores the subject of profiling in some detail.

Bob Hinton, John Eddlestone and Stephen Wright have also written books on the subject of Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Bob Hinton, John Eddlestone and Stephen Wright have also written books on the subject of Hutchinson.

The real worthwhile book on Hutchinson is yet to appear, you know, the one where he is actually located and trustworthy information is available.
Until then you occupy yourselves with guesswork, innuendo, accusations, and nothing of a reliable nature.

[MysterySinger]

Thanks for the welcome Ben - I will certainly take up on your recommendation and might and up coming back with a different opinion.

In the meantime, the crux of the discussion really revolves around what you can believe of George Hutchinson. The circumstances of his offering up information to the Police were strange. If my information is correct and he was a married man at the time, why would he need to be lodging where he said (he was too late to get in apparently but why not go to his own home?). Why would he tell Police he was a groom when he was a butcher? How could he have seen and heard what he said he did? On the other hand, what motive would he have to lie - if he were JTR he was taking a huge risk in going to the Police. Makes more sense that he was covering for someone to me.

[Ben]

Hi MysterySinger,

It is well known that serial killers have injected themselves into their own investigations as witnesses when they feared a potentially incriminating link to the crime might come to the attention of the police. As John Douglas of the FBI explains:

Some killers — the more organized or premeditated type — sometimes even inject themselves into the police investigation to provide bogus information. They do it for different reasons. They may want to find out where the investigation is headed or look for cues that it’s progressing along nicely because, naturally, they’re concerned about that.

They may go to the police in order to beat them to the punch, just in case someone may have seen them or provided a description of their car. This way, if their names pop up later, they can come back and say, “Oh, wait a minute, I went to you guys a month ago. I was cooperative.”

Covering for someone else seems a less likely option to me, as it would involve rather an extreme self-sacrifice.

Hi Jon,

Until then you occupy yourselves with guesswork, innuendo, accusations, and nothing of a reliable nature.

While we're on the subject of "occupying" oneself, there's a lovely long post waiting for you in the Hutchinson forum that demands your instant attention. So off you scurry to address that, and try to make your criticisms a little more specific and focussed, as opposed to the "stop mean being about my friend George" vibe you're exuding here.

[Wickerman]

In the meantime, the crux of the discussion really revolves around what you can believe of George Hutchinson. The circumstances of his offering up information to the Police were strange. If my information is correct and he was a married man at the time, why would he need to be lodging where he said (he was too late to get in apparently but why not go to his own home?). Why would he tell Police he was a groom when he was a butcher? How could he have seen and heard what he said he did? On the other hand, what motive would he have to lie - if he were JTR he was taking a huge risk in going to the Police. Makes more sense that he was covering for someone to me.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the theory itself, that brother William was the killer, nothing that further research cannot solve. The proposition, though, is no further ahead than any other Hutchinson related theory.
You need to establish if your G. H. was the actual G. H. that we read about, until then, there may not even be a brother William to consider, so what is there to talk about?

[Hercule Poirot]

Welcome to the forum Ben.

We must remember that the purpose of profiling is reducing the total 'suspect' population by examining relevant behavioral patterns, trends and tendencies. However, it does not mean that one who meets the profile is the culprit. The usual elements of the proof of culpability test (motive, opportunity and means, for example) still must be met either with direct evidence or unchallengeable circumstantial evidence. To this day, George Hutchinson does not sufficiently meet all these basic requirements but it does not dismiss him entirely. Keep up the good work. Who knows!

[Sally]

Hi MysterySinger,

GJH has recently been discussed in this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8800

It's unlikely that he was the witness George Hutchinson for reasons stated therein.

[pinkmoon]

The reason he stopped been a depraved physco and packed in killing please.