Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

I've just finished False Flag and I must say, Stephen has me sold. Out of all the other suspects I'm thinking George Hutchinson should be tops on the list! Don't get me wrong, I'm not buying everything he's selling (I think there might possibly be a few more victims than he lists for one thing and I'm not 100% on The Victorian Home being his sole residence) but overall, he makes some excellent, indisputable points. At least IMO, they're indisputable. That mainly being the Jewish Connection. I just don't see how anyone can look at that kind of evidence and not see that someone (JtR) is trying to point the finger at the Jews. Especially after the Double Event! I mean just count how many times something relating to the Jews comes up;
1: International Working Mens Society, Dutfield's Yard & their Yiddish Language Newspaper 'Arbeter Fraint' also printed from a building in Dutfield's Yard.
2: According to Israel Schwartz, he was called the derogatory name of "Lipski", which of course was a sort of racist term used against the Jews at that time.
3: Mitre Square, where the victim was last seen talking to a man in Church Passage which just so happens to bump up against The Great Synagogue.
4: Goulston Street Graphito written on the wall of The Wentworth Dwellings which were predominantly inhabited by Jews (some estimates as high as 95-100% Jewish).
5: And finally the Graphito itself: "The Juwes are the men..."

I know there is quite a few people who believe that all this evidence points to Jack as BEING Jewish. Really? Do you really think that ANY foreign Jew was able to get within 10' of a prostitute at that time? With that kind of hysteria and media attention going on against the jews? Let alone getting one to come down a dark passage? But I guess who knows? Maybe they were so drunk they couldn't tell if he was Jewish or not?? Maybe...

Hi red
I pretty much agree. But I dont go as far as stephen does with the jewish connection. As in i dont think the ripper strated out trying to implicate jews. I think the geographic stuff was just coincidence. However, from the night of the double event on i do beleive the ripper was trying to throw blame on the jews and that the most likely suspect is hutch.

And aussie hutch that he found. Lordy. If ever there was a photo of hutch and the ripper this is it.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the geographic stuff was just coincidence

Agreed. Finding a Jewish connection in 1880s Whitechapel and its immediate environs is like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed. Finding a Jewish connection in 1880s Whitechapel and its immediate environs is like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel.

Lol. Good one sam!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just refreshed my memory on Hutchinson’s evidence and found that I still come to the same opinion that I came to thirty years ago. For me there’s very little that’s believable about him. The time he took to go to the police. The Sherlock Holmes like description of a such a well dressed person in such a dodgy area that no one else saw. The unnatural act of stooping down to stare into his face. The fact that Mary didn’t tell him to p**s off for following her and being so nosey. The ridiculous amount of time waiting to see if they re-emerged.

He just sounds like an attention seeker to me. Quite a sad figure. Just my opinion.

[Wickerman]

Jon,in reply to your last post to me.
I a m not mixing anything up.The sequence is not the Item I have been referring to.It all began With Hutchinson arriving at the police station,on 12-11-1888, with a prepared statement,..

Harry.
What do you mean by 'prepared'?

A phrase in that statement,a statement signed by Hutchinson ,contains the words,"Can be identified".You claim those words were the invention of the police officer,and not the actual words spoken by Hutchinson.

More than that. I claim that entire paragraph is the product of Badham.
The paragraph detailing the suspect description is separate from the statement. By that I mean it is not part of the statement, it being the result of specific questioning.
The content is obviously Hutchinson's words, but the structure and the phrasing is equally obviously the product of a policeman.
And there are too many examples available to argue otherwise. I already showed you three.

You further claim a whole paragraph was so altered.You show no evidence to back that claim.Instead you attempt to back your claim by suggesting such alterations were common practice by police officers,and that departmental guides,in format appearance,assisted police officers to do this.Or words to that effect.

I guess you were not aware that this was the case.
Only goes to show we are never too old to learn.

[Wickerman]

I've just finished False Flag and I must say, Stephen has me sold. Out of all the other suspects I'm thinking George Hutchinson should be tops on the list!

But there is no new evidence from what was known in 1888.
(The Aussie GH is not evidence, merely a suspicion). Several authors have had a go at condemning Hutchinson, all trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Every theory has been taken apart piece by piece.
It doesn't matter how many theories are invented, with no new evidence it is all conjecture.

I just don't see how anyone can look at that kind of evidence and not see that someone (JtR) is trying to point the finger at the Jews. Especially after the Double Event! I mean just count how many times something relating to the Jews comes up;
1: International Working Mens Society, Dutfield's Yard & their Yiddish Language Newspaper 'Arbeter Fraint' also printed from a building in Dutfield's Yard.

It's only an assumption that Stride was a Ripper victim. Not everyone thinks so. Also, given the number of Jewish businesses in the area this is only to be expected.

2: According to Israel Schwartz, he was called the derogatory name of "Lipski", which of course was a sort of racist term used against the Jews at that time.

Jews were victims of prejudice across the East End. Not everyone who hated Jews was the Ripper.

3: Mitre Square, where the victim was last seen talking to a man in Church Passage which just so happens to bump up against The Great Synagogue.

This sighting was too late, Lawende never identified the body, and Insp. McWilliams (City Police) was not convinced the female was the victim.
Neither am I. Given the extent of the mutilations the murder was likely already in progress when the three Jews came out of the club after 1:30.

4: Goulston Street Graphito written on the wall of The Wentworth Dwellings which were predominantly inhabited by Jews (some estimates as high as 95-100% Jewish).
5: And finally the Graphito itself: "The Juwes are the men..."

Who wrote that graffiti?, this question has never been settled.

I know there is quite a few people who believe that all this evidence points to Jack as BEING Jewish.

None of the above is 'evidence', none of it has been proven to be true.
All of it is suspicion, and all of it has been questioned over the years.
Where is the value of writing another book with all the same accusations and conjecture?

Really? Do you really think that ANY foreign Jew was able to get within 10' of a prostitute at that time? With that kind of hysteria and media attention going on against the jews? Let alone getting one to come down a dark passage? But I guess who knows? Maybe they were so drunk they couldn't tell if he was Jewish or not?? Maybe...

You might not appreciate how desperate these women were for a few pence.
We know from contemporary statements at the time that these women were prepared to take the risk.

[caz]

Where a witness statement is taken which refers to a description of an offender/suspect who is not known/or known at the time. The term "I would be able/not be able to recognize/identify him again is included in a statement as a matter of course, for obvious reasons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
But we know that in the Hutchinson statement,the words used were,"can be identified".Of course other descriptions would also surfice,but they were not used, and there is no evidence for Wickerman claim,that the whole paragraph was changed by Badham,from what Hutchinson actually said,to one Badham felt was more appropriate.No evidence whatsoever.

The phrase: 'can be identified' obviously comes from Badham, because it would make no sense for Hutch to say 'the man I saw can be identified' when it would be Hutch himself doing the identifying. He'd have said something like: "I'd know the man again", which then allowed Badham to impart the good news that this man 'can be identified [by the witness if seen again]'. That's why it was considered worth while taking Hutch round the streets in the hope that he would see this man, because he could identify him.

It's simple English language, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi red
I pretty much agree. But I dont go as far as stephen does with the jewish connection. As in i dont think the ripper strated out trying to implicate jews. I think the geographic stuff was just coincidence. However, from the night of the double event on i do beleive the ripper was trying to throw blame on the jews...

Hi Abby,

I tend to agree, or at least I think it's entirely plausible.

Serial killers will always try to shift the blame onto others for the evil they do themselves, whether it's their overbearing mother, a cheating girlfriend, a prostitute with the clap, or even his latest victim, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time - all of which may translate to a chronic problem with womankind in general. Alternatively it can be a whole group of men, in this case the Jews, who are creating temporary obstacles for him, real or imagined, as he goes round the victim-rich streets of Whitechapel seeking opportunities to vent.

Easy to see how Jack could have slipped naturally into bigotry if not Jewish himself. Anyone not like him, or not seeing the world the way he saw it, could have got in the way and become a target for his own demons. And the Jews, IMHO, were just a convenient presence to be targeted. He might even have deluded himself into thinking the non-Jewish community would be on his side if he took a pop at them, while 'cleaning the streets' of bad women, as the Yorkshire Ripper tried to claim he was doing. Blame shifting again.

I can't, however, see anything in the evidence to suggest Hutch had anything to do with the murders. If he saw a flash, Jewish looking man being picked up by Kelly, that's what he saw. It doesn't automatically make him a liar, a bigot or a suspect for the murders himself. And as Abberline believed him, I'd need some strong evidence that he was full of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[packers stem]

What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .

[Sam Flynn]

What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .

No obvious reason? Wherefore your namesake, Matthew Packer, and other would-be witnesses with exaggerated or made-up stories?

[packers stem]

No obvious reason? Wherefore your namesake, Matthew Packer, and other would-be witnesses with exaggerated or made-up stories?

Completely different I'm afraid.
Packer was selling fruit from his window and genuine reason for being there with his wife as witness .
Hutchinson had no alibi ...... at all .
If he was to be believed he was quite probably the last person to see her alive , with a ridiculous tale to tell , for no reason .This isn't debatable witness with a genuine reason for being around ,this was putting yourself in the line of fire and with no possible Alibi to come to the rescue so why on earth would anyone take such a massive risk ?

[caz]

What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The fact is he didn't become prime suspect.

He didn't become a suspect at all - even after blabbing to the papers.

I don't think he'd have done that, or would ever have come forward, if he had the slightest reason to think the police might not only want to check him out more thoroughly, but might be right to do so.

I think the real killer got away with it by not showing his face to any potential witnesses, because he needed to show his face to the police and newspaper reporters like he needed a hole in his head.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I tend to agree, or at least I think it's entirely plausible.

Serial killers will always try to shift the blame onto others for the evil they do themselves, whether it's their overbearing mother, a cheating girlfriend, a prostitute with the clap, or even his latest victim, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time - all of which may translate to a chronic problem with womankind in general. Alternatively it can be a whole group of men, in this case the Jews, who are creating temporary obstacles for him, real or imagined, as he goes round the victim-rich streets of Whitechapel seeking opportunities to vent.

Easy to see how Jack could have slipped naturally into bigotry if not Jewish himself. Anyone not like him, or not seeing the world the way he saw it, could have got in the way and become a target for his own demons. And the Jews, IMHO, were just a convenient presence to be targeted. He might even have deluded himself into thinking the non-Jewish community would be on his side if he took a pop at them, while 'cleaning the streets' of bad women, as the Yorkshire Ripper tried to claim he was doing. Blame shifting again.

I can't, however, see anything in the evidence to suggest Hutch had anything to do with the murders. If he saw a flash, Jewish looking man being picked up by Kelly, that's what he saw. It doesn't automatically make him a liar, a bigot or a suspect for the murders himself. And as Abberline believed him, I'd need some strong evidence that he was full of it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz'good post and pretty much agree with everything you say except:

I can't, however, see anything in the evidence to suggest Hutch had anything to do with the murders. If he saw a flash, Jewish looking man being picked up by Kelly, that's what he saw. It doesn't automatically make him a liar, a bigot or a suspect for the murders himself. And as Abberline believed him, I'd need some strong evidence that he was full of it.

He was there, he engaged in stalking behavior, he has an unbeleivable suspect/story, he waits till the inquest is over to come forward. he has no alibi. His jewish suspect is the only jewish implication/evidence other than the night of the double event-hes the only witness to dirctly implicate a jew.


Is it really so crazy a theory that hutch as the ripper, knows mary,even casually as someone who lives in the immediate area and knows prostitutes, maybe even has heard she is recently single (hes staying a stones throw away in the victoria house) and is keeping an eye out for her. maybe goes by her place? shes occupied, so he waits a while. leaves, comes back to find her guest is gone-you know the rest.

later worries he may have been spotted-so comes forward as a witness-better than being sought out as a suspect. And runs with the jewish suspect angle?


It all ties together logically for me.


yes Abberline apparently beleived him. But..but. He "interogates" him so perhaps there is initial suspician. but is hoodwinked by the hope that hutch can be a stellar witness that helps him catch the ripper. and then not much later the accounts that hutch is discredited.
Abberline wouldnt be the first good cop who has been fooled by a criminal-they tend to be good liars.


anyway its enough for me to think hutch is a the best of a bad bunch of suspects.

[Abby Normal]

Completely different I'm afraid.
Packer was selling fruit from his window and genuine reason for being there with his wife as witness .
Hutchinson had no alibi ...... at all .
If he was to be believed he was quite probably the last person to see her alive , with a ridiculous tale to tell , for no reason .This isn't debatable witness with a genuine reason for being around ,this was putting yourself in the line of fire and with no possible Alibi to come to the rescue so why on earth would anyone take such a massive risk ?

serial killers are nothing if not risk takers.

But I agree with you-most would stay away. IMHO its a check mark against hutch as a viable suspect.


nevertheless, not enough to discount him let alone clear him. and hes got enough other red flags.

[Wickerman]

What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .

In those days the public did not get their information from the police, but from the press. So it doesn't matter what we read about police theories or what the police knew. It is what was written in the press that the public believed, meaning, Hutchinson.

And, in the press, all over that first weekend the vast majority of newspaper stories reported the Maxwell/Lewis evidence as significant. Some even going so far as to announce the murder took place after 9:00 am Friday morning.

Hutchinson only saw Kelly 6-7 hours before that, so obviously in his mind what he saw had nothing to do with a murder that took place after 9:00 am.
Reason enough for him not bothering to come forward.

Why did he change his mind then?
The Star in their early afternoon edition on Monday, the day of the inquest, reported Cox had seen the murderer, with the subtitle - The Murderer Described, above her testimony.

Hutchinson, on learning this, and discussing his sighting with a fellow lodger, would know the claim was not true. Also, he likely assumed this was official opinion, so on the advice of his fellow lodger, off to the police he went.

Why does his role in this drama need to be any more suspicious than that?