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

[Abby Normal]

We seem to be getting a bit tied up with killings after Kelly. As has been proved in modern cases, serial killers can stop killing for lengthy periods of time, I believe in one case 15 years.

Also you are forgetting that there are a myriad of reasons why a serial killer stops killing even if he wants to carry on, the main one being of course he could be dead! There were thousands of ways of dying in London from Typhoid to being run over by a carriage ( in 1892 over 3,500 people were killed in London by being run over, that doesn't include injuries!). He could have left the country, joined the Army or Navy, been murdered and so on.

Hi Bob
But since in this case we are talking about GH, do we know what happened to him after MK? i don't think we do, do we?

If he was unemployed perhaps he moved away to find work?

Thanks

[GregBaron]

MJK a solo effort?

Not sure if this is pertinent to this thread but I'm addressing the
theory that MJK was a one-off by someone other than JtR. Do you
really believe that there was someone else in Whitechapel 88 capable
of this sort of depravity? If someone other than JtR murdered Mary
and wanted it to appear like his work, why the overkill? To think
that Barnett or someone close killed her supposes that this sort of
savage mutilation was the proclivity of more than one. I just can't
buy this.....not many would be capable of such a level of degradation.
To me this is the murderer of Eddowes, the brutal mutilator, who simply
had the time to take it to the extreme. I don't care if one is a butcher
or living in the most decadent place on earth, few people are sick enough
to carry out such an atrocity. This is JtR's unimpeded climax and not
the work of Barnett or Fleming or even Hutch in a solo effort. It's too
vile and evil for a domestic or one-off IMO.............


Greg

[caz]

Well Greg, you won't get any argument from me on that. Some will claim there are plenty of examples of MJK-type murders that were domestic in nature, or at least one-offs. But that ignores the elephant in the room: the massive coincidence of time, place and victim type, that saw two throat-cutting mutilators at work in quick succession on local unfortunates. So these same theorists then have to link MJK with the ripper series after all, by claiming her killer was directly influenced by Jack's work and/or took timely advantage of it to commit the perfect murder - a copycat who made his work look more ripper-like than the ripper himself managed to achieve - kind of like coming first, ahead of Jack, in a Jack lookalike contest.

The problems only get worse when it comes to deciding whether MJK's throat was cut by someone who was suddenly overcome with jealous rage and then had to see it through and do a complete ripper job on her, using the sharp knife he happened to bring with him, or the whole thing was cool, calculated and scripted from start to finish - ie as 'impersonal' as Jack himself in the execution.

One witness identified a person standing at the entrance to Miller's Court and it is widely accepted that this was probably Hutchinson.

Hi John,

What's your definition of 'widely accepted'? A handful of message board users?

Do you know of anyone at the time - be they policeman, pressman, newspaper reader or witness - who expressed the opinion that Lewis's lurker could actually have been Hutch the star witness?

That's what is needed here, or it's nothing but idle speculation that they were 'probably' one and the same. Now Barnett had slung his hook and had no money for Mary, there could have been men going in and out of that court like a fiddler's elbow, hoping to avail themselves of her services - whether she was back on the game and up for it or scared stiff of Jack and out of bounds to strangers.

If nobody made any connection back then, between Hutch the lurker in the flesh and Lewis's lurker in her statement, maybe it's because they weren't the dead ringers some would like them to have been. And maybe male lurkers in and around the court were not an uncommon feature - only made remarkable by the murder committed there.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Winsett]

Hi John,

What's your definition of 'widely accepted'? A handful of message board users?

Do you know of anyone at the time - be they policeman, pressman, newspaper reader or witness - who expressed the opinion that Lewis's lurker could actually have been Hutch the star witness?

That's what is needed here, or it's nothing but idle speculation that they were 'probably' one and the same. Now Barnett had slung his hook and had no money for Mary, there could have been men going in and out of that court like a fiddler's elbow, hoping to avail themselves of her services - whether she was back on the game and up for it or scared stiff of Jack and out of bounds to strangers.

If nobody made any connection back then, between Hutch the lurker in the flesh and Lewis's lurker in her statement, maybe it's because they weren't the dead ringers some would like them to have been. And maybe male lurkers in and around the court were not an uncommon feature - only made remarkable by the murder committed there.

Love,

Caz
X[/QUOTE]

Hi Caz,
Actually that's been the general opinion of a lot of experts in the field, not from this message board. It's because it fits the time Hutch himself said he was there. I mean if he told the police he was there, then why would anyone discount it? So actually yes there is his statement to Abberline that he was there and it matches the time the lurker was seen.

So I guess you could say there is indirect evidence from himself that makes him the lurker. And it just happens to match up with an eyewitness.
Fiddler's elbow, that's outstanding

[Rubyretro]

Caz -I thought that Hutch admitted that he was lurking for 3/4 of a hour at the same time as the man Lewis witnessed, and everybody naturally accepted that he was the same person ??

Do you think that there were 2 lurkers at the same time and Hutch didn't notice him or didn't think it was important to say ??

[claire]

But all this assumes that Hutch was anywhere near Miller's Court, and the point is that there is no contemporary identification of the attested lurker with Hutch the witness. This means that, irrespective of the level of punter-traffic (and I'm sure there was a fair bit; MJK wasn't the only working girl with accommodation in the area), there's at least a possibility that Hutch was not there at all. It's quite possible that he was just the sort of chap who fancied framing someone he'd a grudge against, or was after his fifteen minutes. Abberline may have noted that he believed him (because that's bound to be dragged out again), but police officers have been wrong on that score in the past--and the fact that Hutch appears, after his paid trawl around the neighbourhood, to have been quietly dropped hints that the Inspector may just have realised his error.

So, one lurker--probably the killer, and Hutch minding his own, nowhere near the place, probably not even back from Romford or Ramsgate or wherever he was supposed to be.

[NickB]

Actually that's been the general opinion of a lot of experts in the field, not from this message board.

Yes even the Wiki says: “It is highly likely that he was the man Sarah Lewis saw ...”

But there is no evidence Lewis identified Hutchinson as the man, and it would be a simple matter to ask her to do so.

[Rubyretro]

Please just tell me the facts that you all DO believe then...?...,...????

(this site is beginning to be as if it's for the conspiracy theorisists of 9/11 ? Don't tell me..?????????? Are we doubting that Hutch (whoever he was) was even present, now ?????).

[claire]

I'm sorry, but how is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that it was possible that he wasn't there? What, apart from his own statement, which even you concede was fabricated as per events of that night, makes you so sure that he *was* there? Or, should I say, what, apart from your own pet theory? There is simply no proof of Hutch's presence on Dorset-street; very tenuous suggestions that your Hutchinson was 'the' Hutchinson, and an astonishing lack of evidence for most of the supposition and postulation here.

I don't really like the tone of 'this site is beginning to be as if it's for the conspiracy theorists of 9/11.' I appreciate that you're hot on Hutch, as it were, but disagreeing or suggesting that he wasn't what he, or you, take him to be really doesn't make me, or anyone else, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. 'This site' was, and occasionally remains, a place for well-considered, evidence-based argument.

For the record, the only facts I believe are that Lewis saw a man hanging about, and that, subsequent to that becoming a matter for public record, a man calling himself George Hutchinson presented himself to police with an extremely detailed description of a man accompanying a woman whom the entire country had known to have been brutally murdered some three days prior. Now, it's possible he was covering himself. It's possible he ran into Mary and fancied framing someone. It's possible he made the whole thing up. But none of those possibilities are any more 'conspiracy theories' than poor old Toppy the Groom being a wily murderer of several women.

If you want to sling a noose round the man's neck, then so be it, but it's decent to entertain the alternatives.

[John Winsett]

I'm sorry, but how is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that it was possible that he wasn't there? What, apart from his own statement, which even you concede was fabricated as per events of that night, makes you so sure that he *was* there? Or, should I say, what, apart from your own pet theory? There is simply no proof of Hutch's presence on Dorset-street; very tenuous suggestions that your Hutchinson was 'the' Hutchinson, and an astonishing lack of evidence for most of the supposition and postulation here.

I don't really like the tone of 'this site is beginning to be as if it's for the conspiracy theorists of 9/11.' I appreciate that you're hot on Hutch, as it were, but disagreeing or suggesting that he wasn't what he, or you, take him to be really doesn't make me, or anyone else, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. 'This site' was, and occasionally remains, a place for well-considered, evidence-based argument.

For the record, the only facts I believe are that Lewis saw a man hanging about, and that, subsequent to that becoming a matter for public record, a man calling himself George Hutchinson presented himself to police with an extremely detailed description of a man accompanying a woman whom the entire country had known to have been brutally murdered some three days prior. Now, it's possible he was covering himself. It's possible he ran into Mary and fancied framing someone. It's possible he made the whole thing up. But none of those possibilities are any more 'conspiracy theories' than poor old Toppy the Groom being a wily murderer of several women.

If you want to sling a noose round the man's neck, then so be it, but it's decent to entertain the alternatives.

I do agree it's possible it wasn't him, but the information before us, in my opinion, shows it was him. That's not a bad or good thing. If it was him, fine. If it wasn't that's also fine. The only advantage to it being him is that, with the eyewitness corroboration, it gives more credence to Hutchinson's statement to Abberline as being more truthful. Whether it is the truth or not it does at least verify part of his statement.
If it wasn't him, then what are we left with? A man with little description. It could be a future customer as you state, but where's the fun in that? In my opinion Hutchinson was not JtR, but he did kill Kelly.

[Marc]

Claire,

I reckon doubting Hutch story as a whole, even including him being 'the' (or one among others ?) lurker doesn't make a conspiracy theorist out of
anyone :-)
But on the other hand, we have to admit that few things are 100% sure in the WM...Was MJK even there, to begin with ?
Mostly plausible, but 100% sure ?

Going by the theory (sorry, hypothesis <G>) that Hutch wasn't there but was looking for 'media coverage' for himself still makes him an interesting individual IMHO.

You've got to have some guts or be completely dumb, or perhaps both, to pretend being near the crime scene and the TOD of a murder like MJK's because the police is certainly going to ask you a 'few questions'.

There is an option that I didn't see discussed (doesn't mean it never was, could have missed it) about Hutch 'late' testimony :

- If Hutch was your lurker (aka JtR along your line) he could have gone forward to invent a story instead of taking the next boat to nowhere because he knew that someone who KNEW him had seen him in the vicinity of Miller's court that night.
Not Mrs Long, who didn't know his name (or she would have told it) but someone else, an other 'lurker'.

Not waiting for this other bloke to come forward and say 'BTW, I now remember I saw this good old Hutch near Miller's Court the night etc...'
Hutch would build his Astrakan man story where he admit being a lurker
and nothing more.

[harry]

When Hutchinson came forward and made his statement to Aberline,there would have been things he did know,and things he didn't.One thing he would not have been aware of, was whether,if it was someone other than himself at Crossinghams,this other person had already come forward and stated as such,or would in the future.It is a part of his statement that,in my opinion,he had to tell the truth.His whole story is built around it.It was the only way he could place a person in her room.He could not afford,on that point,to be caught telling a lie.

Although much is made of whether Lewis recognised him,might he not have recognised her?He does not mention her in the statement,perhaps deliberately,so as not to be questioned on a possible identification,but I would have thought the police might have been interested.

As to whether Kelly was a ripper killing,I believe it to be so.
I believe he paused after the double event,and decided if he was to obtain full satisfaction,then the streets and the occurance of being interupted there,was not the place to obtain it.So he waited,untill the oportunity of catching Kelly alone in her room presented itself,and who better than an aquaintance would know of her circumstances,and be able to plan accordingly.

[caz]

- If Hutch was your lurker (aka JtR along your line) he could have gone forward to invent a story instead of taking the next boat to nowhere because he knew that someone who KNEW him had seen him in the vicinity of Miller's court that night.

Hi Marc,

Not quite sure that works because once he knew he'd been spotted hanging around the court by someone who knew him, he'd have been daft to go ahead and commit murder there. Far better to be off like a rocket and find another unfortunate somewhere else. That way, the person who knew him could supply a half decent alibi if he needed one later. "Couldn't have been George, he was definitely in Miller's Court around the time of the latest murder on ..... Street."

I do agree it's possible it wasn't him, but the information before us, in my opinion, shows it was him. That's not a bad or good thing. If it was him, fine. If it wasn't that's also fine. The only advantage to it being him is that, with the eyewitness corroboration, it gives more credence to Hutchinson's statement to Abberline as being more truthful. Whether it is the truth or not it does at least verify part of his statement.

Hi John,

It's 50-50. Whether Hutch was being deliberately dishonest or not, the result of him coming forward at all was that he put himself close to where a woman he claimed to know was later found butchered in a ripper-like manner. In fact, he made himself the last man to see Mary alive apart from a character only he claimed to see entering that room and then would not be able to find again (obviously, if he didn't exist). You have it the wrong way round. What Lewis saw cannot possibly verify Hutch's subsequent claim to have been there. If he did know about her evidence and made his statement on the back of it, it could have been wholly invented, largely the truth or any shade between, without telling us if he was involved in the murder or not. We don't even know what time the killer struck or what time he left. But Hutch would have been dicing with death if he was involved, and risked incriminating himself under questioning.

If on the other hand he didn't know about Lewis's lurker when he came forward (which is at least possible, if the story hadn't hit the papers by then and the latest gossip wasn't reliable or detailed enough), there'd have been no good reason to do so and no damage to limit, whether he was Jack or a one-off killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I'm sorry, but how is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that it was possible that he wasn't there? What, apart from his own statement, which even you concede was fabricated as per events of that night, makes you so sure that he *was* there? Or, should I say, what, apart from your own pet theory? There is simply no proof of Hutch's presence on Dorset-street; very tenuous suggestions that your Hutchinson was 'the' Hutchinson, and an astonishing lack of evidence for most of the supposition and postulation here.

I don't really like the tone of 'this site is beginning to be as if it's for the conspiracy theorists of 9/11.' I appreciate that you're hot on Hutch, as it were, but disagreeing or suggesting that he wasn't what he, or you, take him to be really doesn't make me, or anyone else, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. 'This site' was, and occasionally remains, a place for well-considered, evidence-based argument.

For the record, the only facts I believe are that Lewis saw a man hanging about, and that, subsequent to that becoming a matter for public record, a man calling himself George Hutchinson presented himself to police with an extremely detailed description of a man accompanying a woman whom the entire country had known to have been brutally murdered some three days prior. Now, it's possible he was covering himself. It's possible he ran into Mary and fancied framing someone. It's possible he made the whole thing up. But none of those possibilities are any more 'conspiracy theories' than poor old Toppy the Groom being a wily murderer of several women.

If you want to sling a noose round the man's neck, then so be it, but it's decent to entertain the alternatives.

Hi Claire
Well the question is if Lewis lurker testiomony was in the press before GH went to the police. If it was- then OK there is a chance GH knew about the lurker and then placed himself there. if her lurker testimony was not in the press before GH went to the ppolice then we can reasonably figure that GH was the lurker. Don't you think?

[Rubyretro]

I'm with Harry -I think that the key is that HE recognised Mrs Lewis (it could be that he recognised someone else -but he came forward after HER statement).

I think that the reason that he went on to commit the crime, despite being seen by, and seeing Mrs Lewis, can stand up if we imagine that :

- she didn't address him if she knew him and didn't appear to see who it was on the moment
- He was in a state of high excitaton and was anticipating the fact that he would at last have the comfort, time & privacy to do anything that he wanted (something that he wouldn't easily find if he sloped off to find a different victim).
- He could have been drinking all day/evening and his judgement was clouded (alcohol abuse could be a factor in this case).
-there were no telephones, and he hung around long enough to know that she hadn't gone to look for a policeman to catch him in the act
-the risk factor added to his adrenalin rush

Then there could be secondary reasons:
-it was rainy & he was tired from walking and wanted to be in that room
-Mary was very young and attractive, unlike the other victims, and that excited him even more than just any old prostitute
-he'd taken terrible risks before and had never been caught
-he'd been seen by witnesses before who either hadn't come forward at all, or had got their descriptions wrong
-Mrs Lewis was someone whom he often passed, that he recognised -maybe even knew her name- but he didn't know if she would know him

He might have got into a panic after the crime when he followed the inquests with a 'special' interest :
- Mrs Lewis came forward and she got his description closer than anyone
- the 'lurker' described by Lewis would be the prime suspect while he stayed 'anonymous'
-he passed Mrs Lewis often in the street and it might easily jog her memory into pointing the finger at him, if she passed him again
-he had been talking to Mary openly in a busy street a short while before the crimes and could have been seen by anyone
-he might have been hassling Mary in previous times, and this could be known to various prostitutes/drinkers in the pubs
-if he DIDN't come forward, was subsequently identified by Mrs Lewis, this could prompt witnesses unknown, of the 2 previous points, to wade in with
their statements
-if he 'ran' than it would look terrible if he had previously told people of his intentions to stay & work in the area
-if it were subsequently discovered that he had made himself scarce after the 'Double Event' say, then it would look worse

Then I can imagine secondary reasons :
-when he remembered how far he'd gone with MJK, the next day, he was lucid & disgusted with himself (like an alcoholic or drug addict ) and resolved to stop.
Coming forward to police was a way for him to make it impossible to commit another crime.
-he decided that, if he continued risk taking, then he would end up reviled and hung -and he didn't want to die
-he had known Mary, liked her on another level, and was sorry that the 'demon' in him had led him to such depravity
-he felt that he was cleverer than the police & crafty enough to give a plausible explanation for talking to Mary in the street, and lurking in Miller's Court
-he thrived on risk and it gave him a buzz to go to the police
-he thrived on public attention
-it gave him another opportunity to put forward a jewish suspect

Only imagination -but I can find logical (to me) reasons for Hutch commiting the crime despite being seen in Miller's Court, and not running but coming forward to the police..