Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[caz]

And, of course, Ridgway’s behavior bears not even the slightest similarity to what you are suggesting Hutchinson did.

We are asked to believe that George Hutchinson boldly walked in the front door of a police station out of the blue, plopped himself in a chair, threw his shoulders back, asked to see a detective, and then told them in no uncertain terms that he spent 45 minutes outside the worst crime scene in modern UK history.

That’s not injection. That’s injection on steroids.

I’m seeing nothing even remotely similar in the cases of Chikatilo, Sutcliffe, Ridgway, or Shawcross.

It’s more like a scenario out of a Hollywood “serial killer” film.

The whole Hutchinson theory is more Hollywood 1980s than Whitechapel 1880s.

I don't believe serial killers have changed in character that much over time, but their behaviour will change according to what they need to do - or not do - in order to stay one step ahead of the cops. In the 1880s that meant doing very little apart from keeping their head well down.

The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

But guilty or innocent, that’s exactly what Hutchinson DID do. Whether he was after a nice little earner or trying to throw off the police, he implicated himself at a crime scene when he needn’t have.

[Sam Flynn]

The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.

And not just forensics, but other technical advances like surveillance cameras and identikits, and subtle "innovations" like more distinctive clothing (and haircuts!), greater social cohesion, lower population density, etc, all of which make it easier to identify a given individual and/or narrow down potential suspects.

[Abby Normal]

The whole Hutchinson theory is more Hollywood 1980s than Whitechapel 1880s.

I don't believe serial killers have changed in character that much over time, but their behaviour will change according to what they need to do - or not do - in order to stay one step ahead of the cops. In the 1880s that meant doing very little apart from keeping their head well down.

The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.

Love,

Caz
X

it was risky to come forward either way-even as an innocent witness-placing himself at the scene of the crime lurking, admitting he knew her and where she lived, no alibi. you would think with that potential suspicion he would have not come forward either.

[Abby Normal]

But guilty or innocent, that’s exactly what Hutchinson DID do. Whether he was after a nice little earner or trying to throw off the police, he implicated himself at a crime scene when he needn’t have.

bingo-I just posted the same thing before I saw this!

[caz]

Dear Harry and/or other Hutchinson theorists,

Perhaps this has been addressed, but I don’t recall. I don’t quite understand one point, so perhaps someone can explain it.

If Hutchinson’s suspect did not exist, if he was just an imaginary Jewish Music Hall performer as Simon suggests, why is Hutchinson loitering across from Millers Court?

Or do you think he was standing for two hours waiting for Blotchy Client #1 to come out?

Or do you think he was never standing there at all?

Does a person stand across from a court waiting for his own imaginary suspect? If not, why is he loitering?

I don’t quite understand what is being argued.

In other words, how do you explain the hour delay between the spotting of the wall lounger across from the court at 2 a.m and the alleged cry of “murder!” at 3 a.m.? Was he waiting to get up his nerve?

And is this the modus operandi of the Ripper? Did he similarly stand around Bucks Row and Mitre Square for an hour or two before striking?

Or do you think Blotchy has been in that room for two hours and the Ripper is remarkably patient?

The existence of Astrakhan could explain why a man was waiting across from the court. What is your explanation for it?

No mockery intended. It’s a serious question.

"I don’t quite understand what is being argued."

Nor do I. If Hutch was never there, and making it all up for the hope of some money or free publicity, why did he claim to have stood around for that length of time? He could simply have said he followed the couple to the court out of curiosity, because of the man's flashy and memorable appearance, saw them enter her room together, then left immediately - that would have done the trick, without inviting any questions that could have tripped him up.

If Hutch was there, hanging around for as long as he said he was, he was better off admitting it once he had decided to come forward, and having a credible explanation that would satisfy the likes of Abberline. But what I don't get is why he'd have come forward if he killed Kelly, after having waited outside for so long beforehand [for no good reason I can think of], allowing his presence to be noted, and his face to be seen, by potential witnesses. Why would the ripper have done any of this?

You might do that sort of thing if you don't have the next in a series of murders on your mind, but are just trying to relieve the boredom and discomfort of having nowhere to go and nothing to do in the small hours of a miserable November night. You might later come to the realisation that the man who hadn't looked nearly as grubby and rough as Kelly's usual customers, and didn't strike you as a possible murderer [or you'd have acted very differently], might just possibly have done her in, in which case you might feel obliged to come forward, if only after some initial doubt and hesitation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

RJ
You have been answered by other posters,but I will write what I suspect.It is that the majority of Hutchinson's statement is false.There is no corobberation.AM,the trip to Romford,the waiting for three quarters of an hour outside Crossinghams,the walking the streets.Where is the proof? The evidence of Lewis is that a man was stood there about 2.30.It did not contain evidence of how long he had been there before she saw him,or how long afterwards he remained.

But Harry, what would Hutch's motive have been for saying he had hung about near the crime scene for three quarters of an hour if it simply wasn't true?

Didn't he have far more to lose than to gain by telling a lie like that?

His open admission to have stayed there for so long is, on its own, reason enough to believe this part of his account. The only question is whether he felt obliged to admit it, in case anyone had noted his entire vigil without him realising. But in that case, if he was the killer, that person would presumably have seen him disappearing into Kelly's room, instead of leaving the court around 3 am - as he felt safe enough to claim.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Which of these three documents did Superintendent Arnold not sign?




Regards,

Simon

[Robert St Devil]

Hi All,

Which of these three documents did Superintendent Arnold not sign?

[ATTACH]18742[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]18743[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

The middle one, Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz - One revision. I shouldn't have written the 'hour' delay between the sighting by Sarah Lewis and the cry of 'murder,' because it was actually closer to a two hour delay.

"Sarah Lewis deposed: I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half-past three. I heard the clock strike.

What woke you up ? - I could not sleep. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. --Daily Telegraph inquest report 13/12/88

Elizabeth Prater, meanwhile, hears the scream about "half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four." Elsewhere she revises this to after 4 a.m. because the lodging-house light was shut off for the night.

So now the Hutchinson theorists have George loitering across the court, staring intently into the passage, waiting for someone who doesn't exist, and then not striking Kelly dead until two hours later.

Ben is mute on this point, not surprisingly perhaps, but at least Abby was willing to posit that Hutch was waiting for Blotchy to exit the room.

But how does he know Blotchy is even in the room? Is the Ripper now tip toeing up courts peeping into rooms and then waiting around aimlessly for hours hoping the people will come out? Blotchy was seen entering at 11.30 p.m. So now George is loitering in the area for nearly 4 1/2 hours before striking??! And does a roll in the hay with an East End prostitute last 4 hours or closer to 4 minutes?

Is there a third client that we don't know about, or is George so schizophrenic that he waits on imaginary clients?

None of this is even remotely coherent, nor does it jive with what we can imagine must have happened in Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, George Yard, etc, where the Ripper must have attacked his victim within minutes or even seconds of meeting her.

And, like you, I am still waiting for a credible explanation as to why Hutchinson would admit to having been outside the scene of the crime for upwards of 45 minutes when he had no good reason to do so. It's easier for me to believe he was telling the truth.

[jerryd]

Hi All,

Which of these three documents did Superintendent Arnold not sign?

[ATTACH]18742[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]18743[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

I would say he didn’t sign any of them?

[caz]

Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street shortly before her murder on Sept 8. By all appearances, Long didn't come forward until Sept. 11th. A three day delay. Her moral perspective was obviously flawed.

Lawende, Levy, and Harris saw a woman they believed to have been Eddowes just outside an entry into Mitre Square. They undoubtedly learned of the murder later that morning, but certainly didn't rush down to the nick. They appear to have been discovered during house-to-house inquiries on Oct 1st --some 36 hours later. For all we know, they never would have come forward.

A lot of people are hesitant to get involved, Ben. Witnesses come forward days later, weeks later, months later. Anyone who reads true crime knows this.

All the more hesitant in those days, as an out-of-work man who had nowhere to sleep on the night of the latest murder and therefore no alibi worthy of the name. Many people in that area, not just those with a bit of form, trusted a cop as far as they could throw one, and anyone with a story like Hutch's could have worried that the police needed little excuse by 10th November to fit up someone just like him for the murders if he dared show his face, three days late, claiming to know the latest victim and to have been sniffing round her room for nearly an hour.

Frankly I'm surprised Hutch came forward at all under those circumstances, once he'd left it that long, never mind blabbing to the press about it afterwards. If Abberline had suspected him, on the same grounds put forward by today's armchair detectives for doing so, he'd have hardly thought to himself: "Oh well, there's nothing to be done about it now the inquest is over", as if it gave potential murderers some kind of immunity for arriving fashionably late to the party. Nobody would ever have swung in that case, would they?

I meant to add that Blotchy and Pipe Man, among others who were seen with or near a victim, seem better bets than Hutch to have been identifiable in the future and dragged in as suspects, yet they stayed well away from the police - unsurprisingly, whether they were involved or not. Hutch and Lechmere both came forward voluntarily and now stand to be condemned for having done so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The claim is not that "it was possible they were friends".

The claim was - "they were friends".

The reason this claim was made is to add a false suspicion for Hutchinson not coming forward. Who would leave it three days if they heard their friend had been murdered?

That is the basis for the claim they were friends.

Hi Jon,

The problem is that those who want them to have been friends, to make it seem suspicious that he left it three days, are depending on Hutch telling the truth about certain aspects of his relationship with Kelly: that they had known each other for some time; that she knew his surname; that she felt comfortable asking to borrow sixpence and also, when he couldn't spare it, saying she had to go and find some money - which Flash Harry was presumably going to provide. That, to me, is virtually an admission to knowing exactly what Kelly was about to do for the money Hutch didn't have.

What did a guilty Hutch have to gain if he lied about all this, but equally what did he have to gain if he was telling the truth? Kelly couldn't tell any tales, could she?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

As for the crowds outside the court, we can always start you off with this from your nemesis, The Echo:

At no inquest held in Whitechapel upon any of the victims of the East-end murderer has there been so much public interest shown, for from fully an hour before the announced time of holding the inquiry little knots of spectators, many unconnected with the case, gathered in front of the Shoreditch Town-hall, where the proceedings were opened by DR. MacDonald, touching the death of Mary Janet Kelly.

So your claim that Hutchinson would have been “all alone” if he was briefly in the vicinity of the town hall prior to the inquest, is instantly proven false, .......

I can finally feel assured that you will conduct your own research when sufficiently lured to do so.

The Pall Mall Gaz. does report that the crowds eventually gathered, but for the journey to the mortuary by the Jury.

All this though, was before any witness testimony.
Hutchinson doesn't need to be there at the start of the inquest, but at the end (your theory?), so he can pick up on all the gossip to enable him to create this false scenario - again, your theory.

Any idea what size the crowd was by the time the inquest was over?
You want to do embark on more research, or just guess this time?

[Wickerman]

All I ask is that you at least have a bash at a vaguely credible explanation for Hutchinson’s failure to secure lodgings anywhere in the east end, despite having funds to pay for them;

What is noticeable is this apparent obsession you have with details which can only be guessed at. Even if I guessed his real reason, you are in no position to judge whether I am correct.

I already showed you an example of homeless people who prefer to sleep on the streets rather than risk staying a night among 'undesirables' in less than sanitary surroundings.
I hope you read the press link I provided. That's what we call "proof" that even homeless people have their priorities.
So, why not Hutchinson?

"We", can never know if he preferred to stay out for similar reason's, but even then, it wasn't "all night".
Most lodging-houses opened by 5:00 am, so 2 hours or thereabouts.
Hardly a "deal-breaker" is it?

So, Hutchinson's "all night" was only about 2 hours, but I confess I can't remember what time the Victoria Home opened, I'm sure you can dig that up.
So, you tell me how many hours he was out Friday morning?
What time did the Vic. open?

If Hutchinson had truly alerted a PC, and that PC had truly informed his superiors about it, what do you suggest went so terribly wrong that the police hierarchy only learned of Hutchinson’s existence when he came forward at 6.00pm on the 12th?

The PC can only make his report at the end of his shift.
That report will be passed on to his Inspector.
What time on Sunday did the Inspector get to read it?
Then he has to pass it on to Scotland Yard, and how long does it sit there over Sunday night?
On Monday Abberline's first task was to appear at the Inquest, he only returned to Scotland Yard in the afternoon.
Is this when Abberline first heard of Hutchinson's story?
We know Badham sent the statement to Scotland Yard sometime after 6:00 pm, but we don't know if Abberline had already heard about this witness via an internal memo.

Yes, but the evidence in this case suggests that the “witness” would not have come forward at all had he not been seen.

I’ll “move on to the next argument” when you do, Jon, and not a second before.

As I have pointed out before Ben, the early afternoon copies of the Star published a report from the inquest, headed by the subtitle...

The Murderer Described

The subsequent paragraph gave the testimony of Mary Cox.

This would be sufficient cause for him to go to the police to tell them they had it wrong, Kelly was alive and on the streets after 1:00 am.
This is my preferred cause for him to come forward, after the inquest.
And, it fits the timing & the known facts.

I refer to the distance between the corner of Commercial/Dorset Street (Hutchinson) and the entrance to Miller’s Court (Kelly/Astrakhan).

I know you do, because if you accepted him standing directly opposite Millers Court, where Sarah Lewis saw a man loitering, it weakens your argument.
That's called a false pretense on your part.

A handkerchief is not going to be on display underneath a jacket and overcoat, Jon. Not even Hutchinson made such a claim.

The coat had to be open for him to see the watch-chain, waistcoat & jacket.