Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

Here we go, Fish..

"The thing is though, that there was a witness who saw Hutch in Miller's Court"

To be a lot more exact, Ruby, there was a witness (Lewis) that said that she saw SOMEBODY outside the court, not in it

. She saw somebody leaning against a wall, looking up the Court "as though waiting for somebody" -the person she saw, in that time frame, has got to be entirely suspicious. Why would someone be outside a murder scene, just before the event, fixedly watching the room where a lone vulnerable woman
(the future victim) is going to bed ? Hutch placed himself at the scene, as that man, with a 'suspicious' explanation. He came forward to identify himself , after a man matching his description was seen there by an independant witness; He may have been lying -but the Police initially believed him.

Hutch does not even mention any woman passing by, to begin with. And Lewis did not get much of a look at the man she saw, meaning that she would reasonably not be able to identify anybody

.

Well, it would have been a dead giveaway to his motivation in coming forward, wouldn't it -if he had mentioned Sara Lewis? Yet, if she saw him -then he saw her. Her description is good enough; I agree with the people who have mooted that she was someone in the area who passed him often.
She didn't recognise him in the dark -but he recognised her. Garry points out that that if the Police had witheld to the papers certain bits of Lewis's description, hoping to lull the killer into a false sense of security, then he could have been pointed out in the street. I think that he went for 'damage limitation'

And one cannot dismiss a sighting under them circumstances because the man in question was only seen by Hutch. You may compare it to Schwartz´s story - nobody else than him swore to BS man´s existence, but that did not make the police discard him.

Actually there is an independant witness story that saw two men chasing down the street, which corroborates Schwartz's statement.

Long was the only one who saw Chapman and a possible killer in Hanbury Street, but that was good enough for the police anyway

.
After reading Wolf Vanderlinden's Dissertation on the subject, he proved to me (anyway), that Mrs Long did not see the killer -and the murder happened more at the hour that was given by the Police Doctor.

"Hutch was 28 and was described as an unemployed 'Groom' -why not an unemployed Plumber"

I find

it fascinating, Ruby, that people who have a laugh at the expense of those who believe in Hutchs´story, calling them naive for not realizing that he was telling tall tales, at the same time cannot apply the same critical thinking to his statement of being a former groom

.
If he could lie about the former, what would make it impossible to do so about the latter?

Because somebody putting themselves in a position where they might become 'accused' would not lie about facts which have no ostensible bearing on their guilt or otherwise. Why the hell get caught out as a lier on whether you're a plumber or a groom ?? Furthermore having a 'trade' would make you just that little bit more respectable (hence believable) -not to mention self pride in your achievements. Obviously we don't KNOW FOR SURE that Hutch was a 'Groom'..but if he said he was, and it was accepted by the Police and Press that he was, then I think that he was. If he said that he was a Groom, but really a Plumber -I mean WHY ?

"How could he have known Mary '5 years' yet be following a (documented) apprenticeship elsewhere at the same time ?"

Three years, Ruby. Three. And I´d be very interested to see the personal documents I take it you are referring to, since they have eluded me totally in the past.

I'll have to look -I know that Garry PM'd me with the papers showing that Hutch was listed as 'scholar' and 'apprentice', at the family address, at the dates preceding the killings. Given that he later took over the Family trade (as did Reg , I think), his whole career logically follows.

"

I'm willing to change my mind, if other people's arguments are convincing"

I reiterate.

What you need, Ruby, is not arguments. What you need is written evidence. That, at least, is what convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt.

Ok, fine -just give me all YOUR written evidence to support your argument.

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro writes:

"The thing is though, that there was a witness who saw Hutch in Miller's Court"

To be a lot more exact, Ruby, there was a witness (Lewis) that said that she saw SOMEBODY outside the court, not in it. Please keep in mind that precisely as it is said that Hutch may have heard about the inquest testimony (or been at the inquest himself), and decided to try and save his skin by coming forward with a guilt-deflecting story, he may ALSO have heard about the loiterer WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN IN DORSET STREET HIMSELF! He may just have realized that there may have been a reward at hand, nothing more.

"I think that he recognised her on the night of MJK's killing, and she subsequently identified him....otherwise Hutch's story would have been thrown out in the first hours, not DAYs"

Hutch does not even mention any woman passing by, to begin with. And Lewis did not get much of a look at the man she saw, meaning that she would reasonably not be able to identify anybody.

"So why was his story thrown out ? Well, obviously, despite Dave conclusively proving that Toffs did live in Whitechapel , some people would have noticed a man wearing a combination of a horseshoe tiepin and a massive gold watchchain with a red seal ; but nobody came forward to identify the man."

Well, Ruby, it was not as if the streets were crammed with people at the time things went down. And one cannot dismiss a sighting under them circumstances because the man in question was only seen by Hutch. You may compare it to Schwartz´s story - nobody else than him swore to BS man´s existence, but that did not make the police discard him. Long was the only one who saw Chapman and a possible killer in Hanbury Street, but that was good enough for the police anyway.
Also, remember that we are dealing with the East end in a time when the police was not a very popular force - many, many people who would have had interesting testimony to offer, would have refrained from doing so.

"Hutch was 28 and was described as an unemployed 'Groom' -why not an unemployed Plumber"

I find it fascinating, Ruby, that people who have a laugh at the expense of those who believe in Hutchs´story, calling them naive for not realizing that he was telling tall tales, at the same time cannot apply the same critical thinking to his statement of being a former groom.
If he could lie about the former, what would make it impossible to do so about the latter?
Not that I am saying that he could not have been a groom, for that he could. Very few people describe a clear-cut, totally straight occupation line, and there is no need to think that Toppy must have done so.

"How could he have known Mary '5 years' yet be following a (documented) apprentissage elsewhere at the same time ?"

Three years, Ruby. Three. And I´d be very interested to see the personal documents I take it you are referring to, since they have eluded me totally in the past.

"I'm willing to change my mind, if other people's arguments are convincing"

What you need, Ruby, is not arguments. What you need is written evidence. That, at least, is what convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

Gary did not prove anything with regards to apprenticeship. He speculated logically, though there were no hard and fast rules regarding such a thing only traditions. On top of that, there were plenty of workmen who did not apprentice. Yet, this isn't THAT kind of Hutch thread, so I will relent... unless provoked.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

the fact that if you had slept for six nights at the Victoria Home, you were entitled to one free night.

Hi, Fishman, I did read this on Casebook...but I just took it to mean 'six nights consecutively' -of course this was an assumption and may be wrong.
I don't see that Hutch could have slept at the Victoria Home the night before, because it would take 12 hours approx to walk to Romford there and back. Even if he took an omnibus there, he would still have to be there very early in the morning to be in line to get work...dawn, I'd think.

It seems far too 'easy' to me if the nights weren't consecutive..but maybe you're right.

[QUOTE]

When it comes to Hutch being a possible comparison to van der Sloot, a "normal looking, glib and slippery ... liar", my own conviction is that the very quick dismissal that was bestowed upon Hutch goes to tell a different story; something must have turned up that swore against Hutch´s information, and when it did, the police and the press dropped him like a used diaper. None of them seemed in any fashion interested in picking him up again after that, which pretty much implies that whatever it was that sunk his story, it did not contain any nefarious elements.[/QUOTE

]
Well he was a glib enough liar to be taken seriously for a few days - to be taken seriously in interrogation, and waste Police time in having him march round Whitechapel accompanted by two Policeman. He was also 'glib' enough to talk to the Press and have his story printed, without any mocking comments from journalists.
I feel sure that he'd never have put himself under the Police 'spotlight' if he thought that they could find any 'nefarious' elements that he couldn't explain of his own volition in advance (like Van der Sloot with the film).

A suggestion that somebody came forward and proved that Hutch had been somewhere else altogether on the evening, or even an admittance from himself that he had cooked the whole thing up to make a buck or two from it, seem realistic enough to me.

The thing is though, that there was a witness who saw Hutch in Miller's Court..and he must have looked like her description. Indeed, if you were Abberline, the very very first
things that you would check would be Sara Lewis (she was to hand) and in the first hour or so (yet Hutch was taken very seriously in the first days). Since Lewis frequnted Miller's Court, and Hutch regularly lodged just around the corner, I think that he recognised her on the night of MJK's killing, and she subsequently identified him....otherwise Hutch's story would have been thrown out in the first hours, not DAYs. The Police wouldn't have wasted time and money on him : conclusion, they believed that he was the man in Miller's Court.

So why was his story thrown out ? Well, obviously, despite Dave conclusively proving that Toffs did live in Whitechapel , some people would have noticed a man wearing a combination of a horseshoe tiepin and a massive gold watchchain with a red seal ; but nobody came forward to identify the man. Also Hutch giving descriptions to the Press effectively sunk the Police search, since they would have made the man flee : conclusion -it became obvious that Hutch had invented A Man.

If he had been the cunning, clever mastermind of crime that is implied here, then surely if his story had been broken very quickly, then Hutch would have been somebody in major trouble, instead of a guy that was simply sent on his way with an embarrased shrug of the shoulders on behalf of press and police

!
However, firstly the Police were looking for a 'monster' after the unbelievable savagery of MJK's murder ( going back to Van der Sloot) but these people do not come over as
'monsters'. Next, they showed Hutch MJK's body -and he must have had suitably shocked reactions (but if he had done that drunk or in an 'altered state' his reactions may have been genuine...or partly). Also I feel sure that he knew that he had an alibi for at least one or two of the other murders (and the Police were looking for one man) -this might have been the reason that I gave to Chava under 'Comfort Zone'..but also if you say he was somehow mixed with Pipeman and BSM, he could have had a false alibi..
and the lot taken together would certainly have him thrown out as a suspect.

As for Mikes remark that an identification of Hutchinson as Topping - something I agree with in every respect that we have! - does not put him in the clear, that is of course very true. But I do feel that in the end, the whole character of the dismissal of his testimony points away from him as being MJK:s killer.

I was a convinced Toppy-ite 'in the beginning' but now I am a convinced 'anti-Toppy' ! There are two people that convinced me otherwise : there is Garry Wroe who explored this possibility and proved that Toppy (aged only 22) had spent years at cost followiing an apprentissage in plumbing, which was the trade of his Father. Hutch was 28 and
was described as an unemployed 'Groom' -why not an unemployed Plumber, if he had a Trade ? Why would Hutch be eking out a living and lodging in the Victoria Home if he was a qualified Plumber ? Why would he work on building sites as a labourer and not a plumber ? How could he have known Mary '5 years' yet be following a (documented) apprentissage elsewhere at the same time ?

A person who is a geneologist (so I think that she knows David is genuine) who follows this site (but doesn't interact) pm'd me to direct me to a thread in which David Knott participated, who is a descendant of Toppy's sister Jane...he admitted that Toppy WAS in the East End in this period, and he DID do other jobs, but David said that he was 99.99% sure that Toppy and Hutch were not the same person -but the Family did not want him to speak about them on the net. He also said that the older members did not remember Reg giving a radio interview -and they feel sure that they would have remembered an extraordinary event like this.

PS: proof that I'm willing to change my mind, if other people's arguments are convincing..

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

As you know, I agree with you. I am only helping the Hutchinsonians along with a reasonable comparison to their (possibly) depiction of George. I thing George was just a young buck looking for a buck and not a murderer at all.
Yet, you know that.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ruby writes:

"It's interesting to see that like Van der Sloot, Hutch also contradicted himself
(he'd supposedly had no money left, but he supposedly tried to get into the Victoria Home but was too late...even though other places would have taken him any time of night)..."

I do not know if you have seen the information that surfaced on another thread recently about the Victoria Home, Ruby? That information contained the fact that if you had slept for six nights at the Victoria Home, you were entitled to one free night. This of course means that our boy may have been in the position where he could demand that free night, and so there is no need to conclude that he was contradicting himself in this issue.

When it comes to Hutch being a possible comparion to van der Sloot, a "normal looking, glib and slippery ... liar", my own conviction is that the very quick dismissal that was bestowed upon Hutch goes to tell a different story; something must have turned up that swore against Hutch´s information, and when it did, the police and the press dropped him like a used diaper. None of them seemed in any fashion interested in picking him up again after that, which pretty much implies that whatever it was that sunk his story, it did not contain any nefarious elements. A suggestion that somebody came forward and proved that Hutch had been somewhere else altogether on the evening, or even an admittance from himself that he had cooked the whole thing up to make a buck or two from it, seem realistic enough to me.
If he had been the cunning, clever mastermind of crime that is implied here, then surely if his story had been broken very quickly, then Hutch would have been somebody in major trouble, instead of a guy that was simply sent on his way with an embarrased shrug of the shoulders on behalf of press and police!

As for Mikes remark that an identification of Hutchinson as Topping - something I agree with in every respect that we have! - does not put him in the clear, that is of course very true. But I do feel that in the end, the whole character of the dismissal of his testimony points away from him as being MJK:s killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Excellent Michael !

As it happens, I have seen a video of Van der sloot giving an interview and I think that everybody should watch such things from time to time, in order to
fully appreciate how normal looking, glib and slippery these liars are;

Just reading that they exist doesn't really bring it home, nor does reading transcripts -and we forget.

We should also bear in mind all those multitude of stories in the papers all the time, about seemingly intelligent educated women who are conned out of their money by men posing as property developers, pilots etc met through
dating sites. They sound stupid on paper, but when you see Van der Sloot
smilingly and fluently lying, you realise a) how plausibly the men must have lied and b) the ability to do that is shockingly not so rare as all that.

People often say 'oh the Police would have seen through Hutchinson in interrogation -and they must have checked him out and been satisfied',
but as in the case of Van der Sloot, I think that he wove in details such as
seeing A Man had a handkerchief, a reason to explain why he was watching MJK's room, and I'm sure that he must have furnished some sort of alibi for
at least one or two of the other murders (see my reply to Chava under
'Comfort Zone'.

It's interesting to see that like Van der Sloot, Hutch also contradicted himself
(he'd supposedly had no money left, but he supposedly tried to get into the Victoria Home but was too late...even though other places would have taken him any time of night)...

[The Good Michael]

Oh, part 3 is surmise about Hutchinson's fear of being recognized. It is, of course an argument that the Hutchinsonians often bring to the fore, and is used by myself as a connection to van der Sloot, and isn't necessarily my thinking.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I am a firm believer that George Hutchinson and Topping Hutchinson are one and the same for reasons that should remain buried on the threads of death. Indeed, I have no doubt this is the case. Yet, does that exonerate Hutchinson? No, it just dampens his suspect worth.

While looking at a contemporary murder suspect, Joran van der Sloot, i wanted to posit some comparisons between him and a possible Hutchinson as MJK murderer scenario.

1. Van der Sloot seems to be a sociopath who can lie as easily as taking a breath to try and save himself. A recent story fo his says that he lied about knowledge of the location of Holloway's body to extort money from her parents.

In a Hutchinson scenario, we have the idea of George extracting a nice sum from the police while showing them the places he saw the victim and the killer. In short, it is the same idea of murder and then the seeking of reward, though in different fashions. It does put a young George Hutchinson into the role of lying sociopath at roughly the same age as van der Sloot.

2. The murder: van der Sloot used the testimony of friends, a pair of brothers, to verify his story, even as ever-changing as it was. Separated and questioned, the core of the story stayed solid enough so that van der Sloot could not be detained for long.

In this scenario, Hutchinson must have been checked out thoroughly by the police, lack of records not withstanding. Could they have spoken to the Barnetts at the Victoria Home, and then the brothers corroborated George's story?

3. van der Sloot was caught on camera at the hotel with Holloway. He new about this somehow, perhpas through friends at the casino/bar, and then concocted his story based upon this knowledge that he had been seen and would surely be a suspect.

Hutchinson was spotted by Lewis and he found out during the court hearings. KNowing that he would be suspected, he, with the help of his friends, concocted a plausible (not too) story and wnet forward to the police.


That's it for now.

Mike