You are Hutchinson and you're in trouble....

[harry]

Hutchinson could have said he followed the couple as far as the corner of Dorset street,from where he observed them stop for a minute outside the court,and then enter.He then could have said he(Hutchinson) continued on down Commercial Street.This might seem more acceptable,and less suspicious than placing himself opposite the court
This would have left the identity of the person seen by Lewis unknown,but not less suspicious,as it might be assumed that the companion of Kelly had only stopped for a short while,and without entering her room.
By admitting his presence at Crossinghams,Hutchinson can then place a Jewish suspect,not only in her room,but in there untill at least 3AM when he said he(Hutchinson) left,and by inference,with no evidence to prove otherwise,untill someone was heard leaving the court at sometime after fiveAM.A plausible the'Other person"alibi.

[John Winsett]

Hutchinson probably wasn't JTR but all evidence points to him killing Kelly. He was at the scene, he admitting to being there around the time of the murder. No one else has described Kelly being with anyone even remotely looking like Hutchinson's suspect even though dorset street was busy 24/7. Miller's court had one entrance/exit. One witness identified a person standing at the entrance to Miller's Court and it is widely accepted that this was probably Hutchinson. If he was JTR there would have been more killings after Kelly. Did the police verify his "discussion with friends"? Abberline was grasping at straws. Hutchinson went to the police to make sure they continued to think it was a JTR murder. Of course it's always possible he was absolutely truthful but it's doubtful.

[DVV]

I have no doubt that this witness was convinced he saw Kellys killer, and was very honest in his recollections , dispite modern day doubts.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

doubts re Hutch's veracity aren't solely modern.

Amitiés,
David

[Rubyretro]

Hey Fleetwood,

To answer your question, well it's not necessarily the fear of being caught by the police, but the realisation that if your name somehow comes up as a suspect, which has often happened in cases in the past by accident, then the police check into it and see that you've disappeared pretty damn quick after the fact, it's fair to say that they would want to be asking you a few questions, and the whole house of cards can come tumbling down from there very easily.

As a reasonably contemporary case to JTR, look at what happened to Dr. Crippen. He would have got away with murder if he hadn't taken off on a boat with his mistress at a bad moment. Very common mistake indeed.

Cheers,
Adam.

Well, Adam -I absolutely agree with you !!! And I too say 'fight'.

It certainly is a common mistake to flee...and it would be made even worse if
it turned out subsequently that he had already 'disappeared' after Eddowes.

If he had run away after Lewis had seen him, then his description would have been published in the papers as that of the likely murderer. If he had already told other people of his intention to get work in town, then it would look very strange if he left in a hurry after just arriving, particularly if the description matched himself, and he had been standing talking to Mary on the evening she was killed.

He might not have had a wife and kids -but he DID have family ( at least one sister) who would read the papers. He might have done other things (not murder) which could be linked to JtR behaviour, which his family might know of
and come forward about.

I agree that with without forensic evidence, Hutchinson could not be PROVED to be JtR , whether he came forward or not (so he uldn't be hung for coming forward as a witness) -but he at least stood to lose his reputation and place in his family & society if he made it clear that he WAS JtR by
running.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If I were Hutchinson, I would be a proud man, for not only would I have risked being a major suspect for the most gruesome murder of the series , by placing myself at the scene, but I would have the satisfaction, [albeit unsuccessfully] of attempting to spot the man accompanied by police officers on the monday night, and posssibly on several more occassions.
I have no doubt that this witness was convinced he saw Kellys killer, and was very honest in his recollections , dispite modern day doubts.
My opinion is although GH saw the man described, he was not kellys killer.
The last person seen with the victim, from an official statement, made to the police , and under oath , was a middle aged man , dressed as a market porter.
That sighting was made by Caroline Maxwell at 845 am on the morning of the 9th November 88, and this being the case ,[ being police precedure throughout its entire history] , would have to be eliminated from enquiries first.
We have no knowledge that this happened, so he would be suspect No 1
Regards Richard.

[Adam Went]

Hey Fleetwood,

To answer your question, well it's not necessarily the fear of being caught by the police, but the realisation that if your name somehow comes up as a suspect, which has often happened in cases in the past by accident, then the police check into it and see that you've disappeared pretty damn quick after the fact, it's fair to say that they would want to be asking you a few questions, and the whole house of cards can come tumbling down from there very easily.

As a reasonably contemporary case to JTR, look at what happened to Dr. Crippen. He would have got away with murder if he hadn't taken off on a boat with his mistress at a bad moment. Very common mistake indeed.

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

I agree. It's one thing to speculate about what one would do oneself, and another to transfer that to a suspect, even an unlikely one.

Mike

[Observer]

But don't we also say what we think Jack would do or not do in a given situation? I fail to see the difference.

c.d.

Hi c.d. Speculation fine, after all the Casebook forum's are a little bit of light relief from the tedium of every day living. It's when certain posters state the following

Surely Hutchinson coming forward suggests it wasn't him.

If he did it.....then he'd be thinking: "go to the police and if someone saw me going into the room then I'm well and truly goosed".

If he didn't do it....then he'd be thinking: "go to the police and there ain't a problem because I didn't go in the room - I didn't kill her - so there's no way I can get fingered for this".

The evidence doesn't point to H....nor does logic.

A little bit more than speculation here, in effect we are being treated to George Hutchinson's inner thoughts over the weekend leading up to his eventual attendance at Commercial Sreet police station on Moday the 12th November. As if that was not enough in answer to your question,

" But don't we also say what we think Jack would do or not do in a given situation?"

The self same poster who seems to be able to predict Hutchinson's thoughts, posted this of JTR

It seems a big risk to kill in an area where he knew lots of people were nearby...but we don't know the way his mind worked.

all the best

Observer

[c.d.]

HaHa what a laugh, look at the title of the thread. "You are Hutchinson". Trouble is you're not are you?

Observer

But don't we also say what we think Jack would do or not do in a given situation? I fail to see the difference.

c.d.

[Observer]

HaHa what a laugh, look at the title of the thread. "You are Hutchinson". Trouble is you're not are you?

Observer

[Fleetwood Mac]

id stay and say nothing,its up to the police to prove youve done it.If questioned id only tell the police what they already know(you can do this by listening to how they word their questions).

Ive actually been arrested a few times once i was arrested and accussed of a very serious offence,i hadnt done it,i was actually put forward by the people i believe were involved(to this day no one has been convicted),i knew as i had no proper alibi(i lived alone) that circumstantial evidence could be used to convict me,i just told the police i wasnt there which was true but i learnt how police question you shows how much they already know

I'd agree - I'd say nothing. The less you tell - the less you give away. And there's a chance you may not have been ID'd near the scene anyway - what's to gain from volunteering that information.

So - we have - 4 flight and 2 fight.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac,

As I said, Hutch had no ties such as a wife, family or job so being on the move for such a man would not be as suspicious as it would be for someone with those sort of encumberances. Even if he were found, all he would have to do would be to provide some sort of reasonable explanation for his leaving London..."I heard they were hiring men in (fill in name of town)." Let the police have all the suspicions they want and make them prove those suspicions. Leaving town when he was not wanted by the police did not constitute a crime.

c.d.

Fair enough CD - seems better to keep out of the way. Why make it easier for the police by turning up and saying you were around at the time of the murder? I get you - nothing much to gain from that - when you could just as easily explain the same thing if identified and found.

I'd go with you by the way - for crime where the punishment is hanging - I'd keep well out of the way.

[ianincleveland]

id stay and say nothing,its up to the police to prove youve done it.If questioned id only tell the police what they already know(you can do this by listening to how they word their questions).

Ive actually been arrested a few times once i was arrested and accussed of a very serious offence,i hadnt done it,i was actually put forward by the people i believe were involved(to this day no one has been convicted),i knew as i had no proper alibi(i lived alone) that circumstantial evidence could be used to convict me,i just told the police i wasnt there which was true but i learnt how police question you shows how much they already know

[c.d.]

Thanks CD. Am I right in thinking you'd weigh up the risk of being found by the police against not being found and base your decision on that?

Hi Mac,

As I said, Hutch had no ties such as a wife, family or job so being on the move for such a man would not be as suspicious as it would be for someone with those sort of encumberances. Even if he were found, all he would have to do would be to provide some sort of reasonable explanation for his leaving London..."I heard they were hiring men in (fill in name of town)." Let the police have all the suspicions they want and make them prove those suspicions. Leaving town when he was not wanted by the police did not constitute a crime.

c.d.

[Observer]

Hi Dave, there are endless reasons. All this poll is providing is the way in which individual posters would react to the situation. Hutchinson was an individual, we'd only be guessing if we were to speculate as to why he came forward.

Regards

Observer