Hutch and an alibi?

[babybird67]

can someone...

post the reference to the information that Hutch requested to go to the mortuary to identify the body please?

thanks

[Jane Welland]

It is an option, I think

But I also think that if that were the case, then yet again, you might have to ask yourself what sort of person Hutchinson was?

Money, fame, viewing the body the killer's latest and worst to date? If those were his reasons, particularly the latter two, and he was prepared to walk into the police station on Commercial Street, and spin a total yarn to achieve his ends, knowing, as he did, that he was putting himself in the middle of the investigation into the awesomely bad Whitechapel Murders (if that's not an anachronism) - then he was a very singular person, to say the least, particularly as by his own admission - he was probably the last person to witness Mary Kelly alive - other than her killer, of course.

If he was prepared to do all that - then I think he was a thrill seeker. I'm starting to think that, killer or no, Toppy or no, Hutchinson came forward for jolly - for the hell of it.

Yes, possibly he had aims and desires as well - maybe fame, maybe money - but I think they must be secondary.

Somewhere along the line, I think it's important to remember, Hutchinson, whoever he was, made the decision to come forward and give his statement. Did Lewis' sighting of him inform that decision? I think almost certainly it did - exactly how is open to question.

Why? It is, surely, unlikely that he would have suffered any consequence from that sighting - clearly she didn't know him, or she would have said so. How many men must there have been in Whitechapel matching her description? Unlike Hutchinson's own very detailed description of Astrakhan, I doubt her account would have been enough to convict a man on its own - and as far as we know, nobody else came forward to point the finger. If Hutchinson had kept quiet, nobody would ever have guessed it was him.

So if not fear of identification, then why?

And not only 'why go in the first place?' but why not stop there? Hutchinson gave his statement - that, I would think, would have been enough for most people, but not him. No, he offers to walk around the district with police the next day. He offers to go and view the body of Kelly with them.

He did like to make himself useful, didn't he? I'm afraid I think suspiciously so - because that's just not how it works. Unless you're an attention seeker, a thrill seeker. It seems clear from this rather odd behaviour that Hutchinson was not a worried man. Hutchinson was a confident man, and he liked the attention.

Finally, then, what went wrong? This has been discussed elsewhere, of course, but I do wonder if, having had his thrills, he simply vanished. Certainly, he has eluded capture by researchers to date, yes? Nobody really knows who George Hutchinson was - rather like Jack the Ripper.

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

Some of us know who Hutchinson was, Jane, and if his son's story is anything to go by, bull$hit - or at least naiveté - seems to have run in the family.

[Jane Welland]

You Know?

In your heart, you mean?

That's lovely!

But can you prove it?

Theory's a theory otherwise, Sam the scientist. You know that!

All the best

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

You know? In your heart, you mean?

But can you prove it?

I can, beyond all reasonable - I said reasonable - doubt, Jane.

But let's not go there... again!

Now, back to Hutch the dreamer...

[Observer]

Hi Jane C

One things for sure, there is not a shred of evidence which places George Hutchinson in Mary Kelly's room that morning, let alone evidence which would suggest that he was her murderer, not a whiff either way.

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Hi,
Why did a man named Hutchinson make that statement on the 12th.
Three scenerios, and one of them is right.
1] He came foreward out of public duty , albeit a few days after the event, with no sinister motives.
2] He came foreward because of fear, believing that he had been seen with the deseased at 2am, and actual went with her to her room, however he did not kill her, but left her room,leaving behind a distinctive red hanky, and that item was then incorporated into a yarn which he then told Abberline.
To simplify he was relaying to the police what actual occured between him and the victim, but had himself as a witness , and Astracan as him.
3] He was Jack the Ripper. waiting to move in for the kill, and he came forward out of fear of being reconized, and the whole statement was a fabrication... he simply was paronoid.
Question folks.
Which seems the most likely?
Regards Richard.

The most likely answer Richard using the police notes is one you didnt have on your abbreviated possibilities list.

Reason 4: He intentionally made up a story to be part of the investigation, to try and get money for his story, to get his name in the papers, because he was a scalliwag and a prankster, because he was mentally ill, because he heard how much reward money was now available, because he wanted to implicate someone he knew and didnt like in the crime, .......

You may ask the same question of the possible hundreds of individual people who wrote thousands of hoax Ripper letters......for what reason did they do that?

When you just accept Hutchinson for what he was, and what they thought of his "story", you will be free Richard....

All the best.

[Jon Guy]

post the reference to the information that Hutch requested to go to the mortuary to identify the body please?

It was in a report from Abberline to Arnold on 13th Nov.

[Ben]

there is not a shred of evidence which places George Hutchinson in Mary Kelly's room that morning, let alone evidence which would suggest that he was her murderer

Well, that's until you actually study other serial killers and discover that some of them have come forward under the guise of witnesses after discovering that they'd been seen by independent witnesses, just as many of them have monitered their crime scenes from discreet vantage points prior to attacking. What evidence exists in support of Hutchinson's culpability is far from conclusive, but's it's better than we have for any other named suspect.

Reason 4: He intentionally made up a story to be part of the investigation, to try and get money for his story, to get his name in the papers, because he was a scalliwag and a prankster

Hi Mike - None of that convinces becasue it doesn't explain the outrageously unlikely "concidence" of Hutchinson coming forward and admitting to loitering near a crime scene as soon as it became public knowledge that Sarah Lewis had seen someone doing precisely that on the night in question - same time, same place. Hint: it cannot have been an effing coincidence! His hand was almost certainly forced.

If he wasn't there, and invented Mr. Astrakhan, he couldn't have banked on a "reward", i.e. for the capture of an invented suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hi All

One things for sure, there is not a shred of evidence which places George Hutchinson in Mary Kelly's room that morning, let alone evidence which would suggest that he was her murderer, not a whiff either way

Hi Observer - I guess that probably is true - what sort of evidence would you expect though? We have no evidence that Hutchinson was considered a suspect (as far as I know, although as usual I stand to be corrected by those who know better than I do). So if he was culpable, he did a pretty good job, didn't he?

Michael - He could, of course, have been any or all of those things - I have wondered about the prankster bit - I still do wonder. It has points in its favour.

Sam - I concur. Let's not go there again

So, Hutch's alibi - any further thoughts, anybody?

Jane x

[perrymason]

Well, that's until you actually study other serial killers and discover that many of them have come forward under the guise of witnesses after discovering that they'd been seen by independent witness, just as many of them have monitered their crime scenes from discreet vantage points prior to attacking. What evidence exists in support of Hutchinson's culpability is far from conclusive, but's it's better than we have for any other named suspect.



Hi Mike - None of that convinces becasue it doesn't explain the outrageously unlikely "concidence" of Hutchinson coming forward and admitting to loitering near a crime scene as soon as it became public knowledge that Sarah Lewis had seen someone doing precisely that on the night in question - same time, same place. Hint: it cannot have been an effing coincidence! His hand was almost certainly forced.

If he wasn't there, and invented Mr. Astrakhan, he couldn't have banked on a "reward", i.e. for the capture of an invented suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

But we do believe he received compensation though dont we....and we know Lawende did, and was put up in a Hotel for some time, despite his protesting he could not identify the man 2 weeks after his statement. That small amount of gains was maybe more than enough of a "take" for a prank, .....for a man with no money.

Cheers Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

But we do believe he received compensation though dont we

I'm not at all sure about that. There's no evidence that Hutchinson received any reimbursement for his efforts. Since the police were under the impression that he was unemployed, there was no obligation to reimburse him for any lost earnings. It's the same principle as jury service - if you're not losing out on any income, you're not entitled to any "expenses". We'd still be left with the implausible Hutch/wideawake/Lewis "coincidence" in any event.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

It was in a report from Abberline to Arnold on 13th Nov.

Many thanks, Jon, most helpful.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Ben

None of that convinces becasue it doesn't explain the outrageously unlikely "concidence" of Hutchinson coming forward and admitting to loitering near a crime scene as soon as it became public knowledge that Sarah Lewis had seen someone doing precisely that on the night in question - same time, same place. Hint: it cannot have been an effing coincidence! His hand was almost certainly forced

I think you may have a problem here - at least that's how I see it - doubtless you will disagree!

I don't think Hutchinson's hand is likely to have been forced by Lewis' testimony - for the reasons given above - in the main because I do not see quite how he would have been identified from her account. Unlike Mr Astrakhan, the man Lewis saw would not have stood out from a crowd on the basis of his appearance - he could have been pretty much anyone. If Hutchinson had not come forward, who would have known it was him that Lewis saw?

Sorry, I think you're mistaken here. But let's look at it a bit more -

A man forced to come forward was presumably reluctant to do so - and yes, that would explain why Hutchinson didn't come forward sooner. But as above, I don't see why he needed to come forward at all. I also think you need to factor into this his behaviour once he does come forward - offering to perambulate the area with the police in the hope of seeing Mr A again; offering to go to the mortuary to view Mary Kelly's body - these do not seem to me to be the actions of a reluctant man - rather an eager and confident one. In short, not the actions of a man forced to come forward.

I think rather, that he wanted to come forward - and that he was inspired by Lewis' account to do so.

Now, that may have been because he was just a bloke who wanted a piece of the action - and was never even there in the first place. I accept the possibility of that.

But, equally - and even perhaps more so - it may have been because Lewis account did give him the alibi he needed to play this game.

Consider - if Hutchinson was the murderer of Kelly, and a killer of the thrill-seeking type, then going to the police may well have appealed. But, that doesn't mean he wanted to be caught - far the opposite, I would have thought - because then he would have lost his game, wouldn't he?

If he had come forward sooner, without the testimony of Lewis, and said something in the order of 'I'm Hutchinson, and I was hanging around the Court just about the time when Kelly was killed' - he might just have been viewed as a suspicious character - if nobody else saw him. I think even with Mr A in place, he still would have looked dodgy.

Once Lewis came forward and said she had seen a man 'waiting' however, that problem was pretty much solved for him - because her testimony was corroboration of what he then went on to tell the police - she was, in fact, his alibi, and I think the match between what she said, and what he later said, was highly instrumental in determining how he was initially perceived by the police.

So I'm turning this one on its head, and suggesting that rather than being reluctant to come forward and having to because Lewis' testimony forced his hand, Hutchinson was in fact enabled to do so by Lewis' testimony.

Objections, please?

Jane x

[harry]

Why was Hutchinson there at all?At 2.30 am that morning,nothing of any consequence had happened,as far as is known,and Hutchinson if innocent,would have had nothing to report.As far as innocence is considered,one must at least ascribe a valid reason for his presence,and the only explanation,which is put forward by himself,is doubtfull in the extreme.It leaves coincidence,but coincidence itself does not supply the answer.He came to that place that night and stood in that spot for some reason.Untill that reason is known,he must be considered suspect.He has no alibi for the murder,and in my opinion,being at the scene,without reasonable cause,should be regarded with suspicion.