The Statement of George Hutchinson

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
I hate that term 'Waste of time' but i am sure that you are fully aware that the good lady has hardly expressed herself to members that were sympathetic towards her, when she has had a chance to, infact the only reply i had was, via you, speaking on her behalf [ PM]
I respect everyone on Casebook , that comes across as valid, but i am nobodys fool, and i will not give out too many chances to' carrot dangling 'posters.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

S'okay, Richard.

I was just under the impression you had seen the same images from Crystal's visit to Kew that I had, and would therefore know that, despite her other sins, she had not "wasted her time" in terms of being proactive in her approach to the Hutchinson debates, which would otherwise consist of endless repetetive circles and stamina wars of the order that I - guilty! - find myself getting embroiled in with some regularity.

It was my understanding that you had received and digested the proverbial "carrot" in this case. That's all.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Richard, Ben and all,

I've already thanked her by email, but I perhaps should publicly thank Crystal for what she has done, re Hutch's statement and signatures.

She sent to me the images of the statement, and i'm thankful (and happy) for that.

Her posts, in the big thread and elsewhere as well, have always been sensible, well written and humoristic. I'm always pleased to read her thoughts, and certainly she's an expert in her field.

We all must know what she thinks about the signatures. It would be so stupid to ignore her work.

So again, thanks Crystal.

I'll work so hard till October... I'll have no time to come back here again, I'm afraid... Maybe one time or two, God willing...

To all, the sweetest summer.
Let's do rocksteady...
Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Richard, I offered. And the offer still stands.

[Ben]

Agreed wholeheartedly, David.

Good to see you here.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

It would seem that some members like my compadres Ben and David would like to selectively accept some portions of Crystals statements.....and I humbly submit that both of you fine gentlemen do the very same thing with Hutchinsons statements...knowing full well that he didnt see any Astrakan Man that night, but allowing him credibility anyway by suggesting the part of his story about merely being there is acceptable and accepted...because its possible that is corroborated by another witnesses statement.

But the contemporary authorities dont qualify what they thought he lied about and what he didnt....they discarded the whole story. They thought he was delusional or a liar...I think thats clear in the records as of November 16th. As well they should have, proving or even just believing that any portion of his tale was a fabrication. If they were right, he wasnt likely there at all, and didnt know Mary personally.

I know there is desire to place something other than Discredited Witness on his rap sheet, but that is all he was...and is, based on whats available. Just like Caroline Maxwell....she was not believed. And Mathew Packer....he was not believed. And one must assume by the absence of his story at Inquest or any mention of it or him, that Israel Schwartz was not believed either.

The point being that we know some witnesses made up stories or believed them in their own heads, but none were trusted or believed relevant for any portion of their tale once they fell from investigative graces.

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.

Its merely beating a dead horse my friends. Ive read a lot of suggestion about Hutchinson in the last year or two here....and have only learned that he roomed at the Victoria Home. There is no case against this man, ....and like all of the suspects in these cases, no evidence suggesting their involvement in Ripper murders at all.

I know, negativity....but you know I am summarizing the situation accurately. 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, and it would suggest that George Hutchinson of 1888 was no alias.

In effect.....even further distancing himself from anything remotely suspicious,... like a fake name would be.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

you may like it or not, but Maxwell, Packer and Schwartz won't ever be seriously suspected.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[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

[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 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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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.

[Crystal]

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.

[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