Kudzu. Alias a George Hutchinson Thread

[Ben]

Like it or not the most likely candidate for the actual man we discuss frequently on Casebook, a man who because of a solid memory has been accused of many a foul deed is none other then 22 year old [ at the time] Gwt Hutchinson. a person who the police had hopes might identify the killer, but in GWTs own words ' My biggest regret was dispite my efforts nothing came of it'

No he isn't, Richard. I'm sorry, he just isn't.

but in GWTs own words ' My biggest regret was dispite my efforts nothing came of it'

But how do we know these are GWT's own words? We don't. They come from an alleged radio interview that nobody but you has ever heard of, and even then they wouldn't be "GWT's own words". They be Reg's purported recollections. All in all, it's difficult to conceive of a more disasterous provenance.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I can understand your valid points, but i quess i am a sentimental chap believing that the late Reg actually was relaying his fathers accounts of the 1880s, trusting that he would not invent a story that involved his late father if it was a pack of lies its hardly the action of a decent son.
Of course Gwt may have told the lies, but if so would have to have known all the facts about the real GH,to have known the statement made by his namesake, a lot of trouble to gain a few extra pints in the public bar on a friday night, especially as very little information was avaliable from literary sources at that relevant period.
Like it or not the most likely candidate for the actual man we discuss frequently on Casebook, a man who because of a solid memory has been accused of many a foul deed is none other then 22 year old [ at the time] Gwt Hutchinson. a person who the police had hopes might identify the killer, but in GWTs own words ' My biggest regret was dispite my efforts nothing came of it'
The above quotation came from the mid 1970s broadcast on British Radio[ advertised in the Radio times] and quoted by Reg at the end of his interview refering to his father.
That is why i have different views then many on Casebook, i heard that broadcast...
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

How do we know he never "wavered" from his father's recollections? Who says they even were his father's recollections? Only Reg. No corroboration, and the signatures don't match.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It has been established by some on Casebook the 'The Ripper and the royals ' was not the best publication ever written on the subject, infact discredited by its author.
Therefore because of that the name Reg Hutchinson ,also has given many people less faith in his accounts of his fathers recollections, for eg. payment for his efforts in assisting the police at the time to the sum of five pounds/hundred shillings.
This publication was printed in 1992, and the description of the payment and GWTs life and morals were actually made public some 18 years earlier on radio heard apparently only by me, and i stand by my acceptance of the truth being told.
Why do we patently unaccept the late Reg Hutchinsons account when he never wavered from his fathers recollections, he certainly believed his father and according to Ivor[ Edwards] so did Regs wife.
To Reg all we was doing was to recall what his father said up to his death, to Reg that was no big deal.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

I think we're agreed on the whole here. The period of time spent sauntering the streets until the small hours, viewing the body etc might well have comprised the "period of time to help them with their inquiries", during which time the police took whatever steps they could to ascertain the veracity (or lack thereof) of Hutchinson's claims. That's perfectly plausible. If there was anything specific that clued them into the possibility of fabrication, it may have been his press account(s) that compromised what he had earlier stated to the police, specifically the "Sunday policemen" claim that I talk a little about on the MJK: Analysis thread.

Best wishes,
Ben

P.S. Just a word of caution about the "Romford" and "no money" claims. They derive from Hutchinson himself and may also have been false.

[Chava]

Ben, forgive me but I didn't mean 'banging up' in the sense of throwing him into gaol. He could be kept for a period of time to help them with their inquiries. They could have spun that out for quite a while during which time they could check him out a little, while still providing him with tea and buns and old copies of the Illustrated London News to amuse him. Let's remember GH was an indigent who had just tramped up from Romford and had no money at all. I'm sure a bed for a night or two in the cells--but not in any way as a prisoner--would have been most acceptable. And perhaps that's what did happen. They kept him while they checked him out. Found his statement full of bs. And let him go. All I would like to know is what clued them in that he was untrustworthy. Because there is nothing about his statement on its face that could be proved or unproved unless GH was seen otherwhere during the time he claims to have been on Commercial Street.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

But they have plenty of ammo to keep him banged-up while they investigate his story.

Unfortunately not.

There wouldn't have been any ammo to speak of, and the consequences of taking such action would have been disasterous. Hutchinson need only have blabbed to the press about his "treatment" in response to his efforts to help police, and all future witnesses would be deterred from coming forward for fear of receiving the same. The press too would have had a field day: "This is how the police treat witnesses". Wouldn't have worked. Even in Kosminski's case, where the "ammo" was superficially more incrimianting (the alleged knife attack on his sister), the police still adopted a practice of surveillance, rather than banging him up.

But that's if they suspected him.

They probably didn't, and besides not "fitting the bill", there was no precedent in 1888 for offenders coming forward as witnesses. I'm sure they never, for one moment, entertained the prospect of the real killer coming forward and requesting to be interviewed. There had, however, been precedent aplenty for liars and publicity-seekers gumming up high profile investigations despite having no connection whatsoever to the crime or crime scene, and if they wrote him off as one of these (and overlooking the possibility of his involvement in so doing), it wouldn't have been at all surprising, and certainly not reflective of incompetence.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Hi Ben, Hi Bob,

I understand they couldn't nick him for the murder. But they have plenty of ammo to keep him banged-up while they investigate his story. After all, he was there at what might have been the critical time. The laws weren't such--and I believe in the UK still aren't--that you have to charge a man immediately in order to keep him in custody. That's what 'helping the police with their inquiries' is all about. And I think they had up to 48 hours, or maybe even more back then. If there had been one shred of suspicion that GH was guilty, I don't see Abberline sending that note around. And he may not have been the brightest copper that ever worked at the Met, but I don't think he's so thick he'd let someone like that go unless he had really convincing evidence of his innocence. He may have been mistaken. GH may have been guilty. As I've always said, I don't have strong feelings about GH either way. But something convinced him to listen the the story. And then something convinced him that the story was rubbish. But even then, he doesn't for one second think that GH did it and neither does anyone else involved in the investigation. We say that serial killer investigations were new and the police didn't know what they were dealing with. Well they didn't know the terminology. But series of killings are as old as time. The cops will have seen series before and will have assumed that there was a single perp before. The police in Texas definitely assumed that during the 'Servant Girl' murder spree in Austin in 1884. (That killer was also never apprehended.)

I guess what I'm saying is that no one associated with the police ever ever looked at GH as a suspect. And I believe there had to be some reason for that beyond the 'he doesn't fit the bill' idea.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

As Bob points out, the police were pretty powerless to do anything about it even if they did suspect him, which they might have done. Their only option would have been discreet surveillance for some time afterwards, Kosminski-style. If they discredited his account, they may have come to believe that he was a publicity-seeker who fabricated the whole thing and wasn't there at all. That may have been the wrong conclusion, but it would have been an understandable one considering that policing in general (let alone that which concerns serial killers) was in its infancy.

All the best,
Ben

[Chava]

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her for about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

With respect, that's not the note of a copper who thinks he has a likely suspect. That is the note of a copper who thinks--for a while--that he has an excellent witness. And I can't come up with any way that Hutchinson managed to convince Abberline that he himself wasn't the killer. The other murders had taken place weeks before. Even if GH had spent some time in Romford, he would or should have had to account for his movements on the other nights and those could not have been corroborated so easily unless he was a sailor aboard ship or something, and there is no suggestion of that at all. In my opinion, they believe him until something changes their mind. And at the point of the mind-change, he should become a major suspect. But he doesn't seem to be. He's never mentioned anywhere as being a suspect. I honestly don't understand this at all. I don't see how they can believe him so fast and then disbelieve him so fast. The only thing I can come up with is a possibility that someone else came forward and said (convincingly) that he was with them on the night Kelly died, and nowhere near Millers Court. So exit Hutchinson from the world stage.

[Pilgrim]

Police Escort ?

Is it really a fact that Hutchinson "had a couple of police officers as an escort over the following days" ? There is no mention of this in Abberline's report ?

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her for about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

F.G. Abberline Inspr.
T Arnold Supt"

[Varqm]

Good point Bob. In anycase Abberline have no choice but to believe Hutchinson.To ignore him at that point would have been more futile.
He would have gone for that minute chance Hutchinson was telling the truth.
From his sighting a good break could have come.
If Hutchinson was telling the truth would the cops have given it a value like Lawende's sighting?

[Bob Hinton]

What to do?

Perry, if that's the case, then they must have assumed the whole statement was made up out of whole cloth. Because he clearly states he saw Kelly in the street on the night she died and that would be after she was seen with Blotchy Face. I hold no brief for GH either way, but I'm not sure (1) Why he wasn't immediately a suspect and (2) How they discounted him so quickly. No computers in those days. Someone or something must have convinced them damn' quickly and I can't think what that was!

The point is that even if the police did suspect GH of being a suspect what could they do about it? They could accuse him, he could deny it and walk away. I suggest in my book that Abberline did suspect GH from the get go, but pretended to go along with him whilst at the same time keeping a close eye on him. This tactic has in fact been used in recent times. There was a case in America where a ‘witness’ gave such a detailed description of a man supposedly hanging around a murder scene that the police officer in charge immediately suspected him. He pretended to believe him though and gave him a police escort to see if they could spot the ‘mysterious stranger’. Lulled into a false sense of security the ‘witness’ gave himself away a short time later.

Don’t forget GH was the only witness who had a couple of police officers as an escort over the following days. I believe that Abberline expected the killer to strike again, but of course he didn’t

[Chava]

Hi Chava,

They might have suspected him at some point - we have no data either way, unfortunately - but it wouldn't be at all surprising if they didn't. There was really no precedent in 1888 for serial killers full stop, let alone serial killers who inject themselves into police investigations. Nowadays we have examples aplenty of both. If we take the 15th November as the first indication that Hutchinson's account had been discredited (as per The Star's assertion), it may be significant that his press disclosures were published at the same time. If the press versions seriously compromised his original verson of events, it may account for the apparent re-thinking of Hutchinson from about 15th onwards.

As for Kudzu, yes I was astonished at how prolific that stuff was when I visited Florence SC, in 2005!

All the best,
Ben

Ben, they were grasping at straws at that point. I wonder if they were retroactively suffering from Yorkshire Ripper Syndrome. In that case, the cops thought they were dealing with a man with a North Eastern accent. They discounted everything else. But if the Met could only have had YRS if they thought they had an idea of who they were looking for. And as far as I can discover, they didn't.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

They might have suspected him at some point - we have no data either way, unfortunately - but it wouldn't be at all surprising if they didn't. There was really no precedent in 1888 for serial killers full stop, let alone serial killers who inject themselves into police investigations. Nowadays we have examples aplenty of both. If we take the 15th November as the first indication that Hutchinson's account had been discredited (as per The Star's assertion), it may be significant that his press disclosures were published at the same time. If the press versions seriously compromised his original verson of events, it may account for the apparent re-thinking of Hutchinson from about 15th onwards.

As for Kudzu, yes I was astonished at how prolific that stuff was when I visited Florence SC, in 2005!

All the best,
Ben