The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Bob Hinton]

Catch up.

Why is it believed that Abberline corrected GH's statement by writing 'Queens Head'?

[Ben]

I'm exploring both possibilites, Mike, that's all.

It is possible that they suspected him at some stage, but just as possible that they didn't.

Welcome back, Fish!

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

It isn't my opinion that they did a "terrible" job, but on the other hand, we want to aviod putting Abberline on a pedastal he doesn't warrant. He was competent detective, certainly, but more experienced detectives that Abberline have been duped by criminals since. Hutchinson may have succeeded in pulling the wool over ...

Ah, but these were professionals. Shouldn't I have complete faith in their methods? Would you or I have done a better job?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes, concerning the third page signature from the police protocol:

"I’m not sure where the signature above labelled 1888 came from. Can anyone enlighten me?"

I hope, Mr Hinton, that you will allow me to ask you a couple of questions in connection with this!
To begin with, I know that you have authored a book in which the Iremonger investigation and your own thinking on the signatures involved are discussed. I do not, however, have the book in question - mea culpa - and I therefore would very much like to know:

- Do you in your book, based on your own observations, draw the conclusion that the police protocol signatures were not written by the same man that signed the wedding paper? And if so, which of the police protocol signatures did you use? All of them, two of them - or just the one?

- Since you clearly did not immediately recognize the signature from the third page, I would like to ask you what your verdict is on that signature in comparison with the census signatures and the wedding signature? Do you regard them alike or unalike - or somewhere inbetween?
My own stance on the question who wrote what in the protocol, is that I believe that signature number three is the one most likely to have been authored by the witness. The protocol consists, I believe, of two full pages of text, and a third page on which there is only quite a few lines. And when you sign a collection of pages concerning themselves with the same topic throughout, you normally sign on the last page.
That is what I feel the witness did. If I was to sign a bunch of papers myself, perhaps paper-clipped together, I would turn up the last page to supply my signature. And if there was only the odd line on it, it would make it feel very much superfluous to turn to the preceding page and add a new signature - anybody who puts his signature to a single line or two do not do so to confirm only those few lines, I think - they do so believing that they confirm the contents in their entirety. Just my five pence, but that is how I see things - to me, signature number three is our best bet, for these reasons.

- Do you have any clarification to offer on the Iremonger issue? Are you in possession of the details she used to reach her verdict?

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Has there ever been a thread that has been filled with such ill will that contained such useless information. Really this thread tells us very little

I'm not sure quite what you mean, Brad.

Are you saying that information is only useful if it impacts on someone's suspect status? I find it rather astonishing that anyone can say that Hutchinson's original statement is "of little value", since the reverse is so obviously the case and no elaboration is really required to explain why (I dearly hope?). As others have noted, several of Crystal's observation do impact on Hutchinson's suspect status.

If we are trying to prove Hutchinson is lieing then it is going to take more then someone's opinion to convince me. I am going to take in account that the men who looked Hutchinson in the eye and took down his statement believed him

Crystal wasn't attempting to "prove" anything in her original analysis. The likelihood that he did not report the squeaky-clean unblemished truth is self-evident from the actual content. As we've already established, his statement was discredited very shortly after Hutchinson's initial appearance at the police station, with his "Astrakhan" suspect clearly dropping off the map at around the same time. Clearly this rather militates against the suggestion that he was the star witness for very long.

I've never really understand this habit people have of dismissing the subject of a particular conversation as "useless" or "not worthy of discussion/investigation" and then posting just to make that point.

Hi Mike,

that questioned, probed and prodded, including the highly regarded, world-famous detective, Abberline

It isn't my opinion that they did a "terrible" job, but on the other hand, we want to aviod putting Abberline on a pedastal he doesn't warrant. He was competent detective, certainly, but more experienced detectives that Abberline have been duped by criminals since. Hutchinson may have succeeded in pulling the wool over Abberline's eyes, yes, but then Abberline also believed that Klosowski the expert physician went on an organ-harvesting commission on behalf of an American innards-collecter, who then went to America himself after realising that he didn't collect enough innards in the East End.

Or...

He wasn't duped.

He did suspect Hutchinson, but wasn't able to rule him conclusively in or out.

In the above scenario, they wouldn't have let him go, but monitered him discreetly thereafter in the event of more murders, and of course, there weren't any for some considerable time.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Crystal,
I am well aware of copyright, and i am a man of my word, i am sorry if the chatroom exchanges[ or lack of] are beyond your control, and if that is a public explanation, then fine.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Brad,

I agree with that. The interrogation of Hutchinson simply must include corroboration of his identity and his residence. We have trained professionals, not unlike document examiners, that questioned, probed and prodded, including the highly regarded, world-famous detective, Abberline. When professionals are involved with taking statement of and interrogating such a young and lower status man as Hutchinson, how are we to believe they did such a terrible job as to not only let a killer go, but never look back at him. Not bloody likely.

Mike

[celee]

Hi,

Has there ever been a thread that has been filled with such ill will that contained such useless information. Really this thread tells us very little. Crystal gives us her expert, or not, opinion about a document that is of little value. I know Ben and Jen find some points interesting and I respect that but what are we trying to prove here. That Hutchinson was left handed.

I have no reason not to believe that Crystal has been trained and is capable of giving an educated opinion. However, I do not put much faith in such science. If we are trying to prove Hutchinson is lieing then it is going to take more then someone's opinion to convince me. I am going to take in account that the men who looked Hutchinson in the eye and took down his statement believed him. He must have given a good interview regardless of the stops or the flow of the writtten word in Hutchinsons statement.

I have been in the chat room when Crystal has been there and never had a problem chatting with her but I have no doubt that some childish activities have taken place. Just stop. We are all are a bunch of good eggs. I hate to see something so petty as this tear people apart.

Your friend, Brad

Er, well, Richard, I'm glad you have the images. Please be aware of, and respect, the copyright restrictions. I'm sorry my connection problems in Chat have annoyed you so. But actually-and believe it or not as you choose-I have connection problems in that my home connection keeps kicking me out. It's a bit difficult to converse under such conditions. That's all.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
With reference to the whole Crystal saga, confusion is creeping in.
I have received the said images.
I received them via another member.
It is not those that i was refering to, for there can be little doubt of Crystals
status, as a document examiner.
I am not concerned with Crystals alleged deception in the chat room ,as Romford Rose.
My post was meant to relay my annoyance, at all the cloak and dagger antics which take place in chat regarding her, she signs in, then out, then in . then out, leaving it impossible to have a respectable conversation, yet by some miracle she can stay in for long periods at a stroke.
This action is extremely annoying to everybody in chat who witness that behaviour, and to be honest does not leave any reason to respect her.
she comes across as somewhat deranged, and i am sure that is not the case.
Her posts on casebook, have always been articulate, her views have always been presented well, so why all this Greta Garbo tactics?
I am normally not a Casebook moaner, but i would ask the good lady to at least treat others with respect.
i would have addressed this post , directly to Crystal, but the good lady seems to function via you, as your private to me the other day seemed to indicate.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Im just getting tired of the misuse of the term "Suspect" in general terms more than anything.

But it's not a misuse of the term in the context we're applying it, Mike. Here, a suspect means a person who is suspected. The question is whether or not Hutchinson is suspected with good reason, and as far as I'm concerned, he is. There were contemporary suspects, and there are modern suspects. We don't know if Hutchinson was ever considered in the former catergory, but even if he wasn't, there was never any rule that said that the individual(s) most likely to have committed the murders were those who were suspected at the time, or that if the real killer ever came under the spotlight at the time of the murders, the police would definitely have suspected him.

what is lacking is a single supporting piece of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was either suspected by the authorities or believed by the authorities to be suspicious by virtue of his story or its details

And that counts for very little, considering that it can be explained on the following two crucial counts:

1) They never suspected him because they never imagined that the real killer would approach the police requesting an interview. Hardly surprising given that we're dealing with an 1888 police force with no experience of serial killers. Serial killers duping the police is a very well known phenomenon, so using an assumption that they didn't suspect him to argue that the lack of apparent suspicion argues against his candidacy simply won't work. If anything, it argues in favour of a hypothetical Hutchinson-as-killer succeeding in fooling the police. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed many times without eliciting suspicion.

2) They did suspect him, but the evidence was very unlikely to have been anywhere near sufficient for a conclusive result.

If they dismissed him as a publicity-seeker without considering the implications of Lewis' sighting, then yes, it's entirely on the cards that they made an oversight. There's no evidence that the police ever suspected him, that is true, and that can signify either that the evidence in question was lost over time (not surprising at all) or that it never existed because they really didn't suspect him. Neither options renders him any less suspicious.

Its curious why he would do this...but in the big picture of those events, he has company. Letter writers, men claiming to be Jack in pubs or alleys.....nuts fell from trees a lot that fall. I dont want to be seen as coming off as dismissive without reason. We DO have reasons to set him aside

I don't think we do, Mike.

I think we have very good reasons to avoid lumping him into the same catergory as publicity or money seekers, and I discussed most of them in my previous post. I think we have very good reasons to avoid at all costs the assumption that a discredited witness automatically equates to a discredited suspect. It just doesn't.

I don't feel you're being disrepectful at all.

But I do disagree very strongly.

But we're off topic!

All the best,
Ben

I Just wanted to say to David and Ben that I am not intending to display nor feeling any disrespect for either of your opinions, both of which I enjoy reading.

Im just getting tired of the misuse of the term "Suspect" in general terms more than anything.

The term is defined for legal purposes as "A person believed to have committed a crime and who is, therefore, being investigated by the police." The unspoken implication of course is that the investigation would concern the crime he is believed to have committed.

Obviously then that term cannot be applied to many of the so called "Suspects" in the Ripper cases, only the ones that were actually designated as Suspects in one or more Canonical murder investigation(s) by the contemporary authorities.

What you raise as possibilities with Hutchinson's presence in these affairs is interesting and cleverly constructed guys, what is lacking is a single supporting piece of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was either suspected by the authorities or believed by the authorities to be suspicious by virtue of his story or its details. What is there does not suggest that they found him suspicious beyond what they must have felt when they determined his story was not to be trusted, which may have left them feeling angered and perhaps betrayed. Particularly Abberline.

What this whole premise is based on is a belief that he is Widewake and therefore a person of suspicion by his behaviour, and that his story when given is without knowldege of Sarah Lewis's story....a story from a man claiming to be a friend and occasional loans officer for Mary, given 3 days late, after the Inquest and details of Wideawake were available to the public. He could have heard it at the Inquest from the back row and walked to the station after 6pm with his tale. No-one who testified at the Inquest from Marys life would ever have had to see him....and apparently didnt, because we do not get verification of his friendship or his presence that night by another witness who knew Mary by identifying him or meeting him after his statement.

I dont side with all that the police or medical men thought, said or did, but when it comes to being able to have sat down with a witness eye to eye then check their details...unless they had a problem with someone I dont see the need for us to create one.

Its curious why he would do this...but in the big picture of those events, he has company. Letter writers, men claiming to be Jack in pubs or alleys.....nuts fell from trees a lot that fall.

I dont want to be seen as coming off as dismissive without reason. We DO have reasons to set him aside, because they obviously did...even if we dont know what their reasoning was, he became unimportant quickly.

My best regards as always gents.

[Ben]

It is by no means impossible (or even unlikely) that the individual we seek signed the 1911 census, Gareth, but I don't believe the individual in question was Toppy, for reasons we've debated ad neausam.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

As it happens, I've been no evidence to suggest that the individual known to the police as George Hutchinson "signed a 1911 census form".

On the contrary, Ben, there is more than enough evidence that suggests that, and it's not confined to the census either.

[Ben]

It would seem that some members like my compadres Ben and David would like to selectively accept some portions of Crystals statements...

Which implies that I've been dismissing other bits, Mike - which ones?

The only aspect of Hutchinson's account that could be "corroborated" is his loitering presence outside the crime scene at 2:30am, since Sarah Lewis described someone doing precisely that at the same time. This establishes his presence for a brief moment during the night's events. It doesn't corroborate any other aspect of that account, or perhaps most crucially, why he was loitering there at that time with an apparent fixation with Miller's Court.

We know that other serial killers have loitered outside their crime scenes, surveying the scene prior to attacking.

We know that other serial killers have injected themselves into their own investigations after discovering that they could potentially be linked to the crime or crime scene by eyewitness evidence, including killers who didn't resort to an alias for that purpose.

There's no proof against any one suspect, but he remains a legitimate suspect in Kelly's murder.

And witnesses claiming to be witnesses seen by independent witnesses has zero historical precedent, which is why I doubt very much that Hutchinson was a publicity-seeker on a par with Packer, Violenia et al. Their cases are entirely different, and the idea that Hutchinson's coming forward as soon as Lewis' evidence being made public knowledge should be dismissed as some random quirk of coincidence is simply untenable. The circumstances surrounding his involvement in the case oblige us to avoid restricting our perception of him to "just a discredited witness".

This is a topic as relevant to the investigation of Jack the Ripper murders as The Maybrick Diary is. And Case Closed by Pat Cornwell. And Uncle Jack, by Tony Williams.

Well, I'm afraid that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are very reasonable indications that Hutchinson lied about his behaviour near a crime scene, with doesn't compare remotely to Maybrick and Sickert, for whom there is no evidence that they were even in the East End at the time, let alone one of the crime scenes.

Even if Hutch signed a 1911 census form, so what? That just means if he was the one that made the statement he was not worried about it or attempting to hide from it 23 years later

If he was the killer, he didn't need to be "worried" about that. As it happens, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the individual known to the police as George Hutchinson "signed a 1911 census form".

I know, negativity....but you know I am summarizing the situation accurately

Not really, no.

This thread is for tackling statement as it pertains to handwriting, and I'd be concerned if it mutated into another generic Hutch thread discussing his suspect candidacy. Obviously, nobody is forced to contribute to any aspect of the case that they do not consider to be "relevant to the investigation".

All the best,
Ben