A theory on GH for JtR

[Ben]

Why would he get his clothes stained, Scorpio?

The preponderance of medical evidence suggests that his clothes would not have been stained to any appreciable degree, and in any case, providing his external garments (i.e. his coat or jacket) weren't visibly affected, there was no reason for any fellow lodger to notice any suspicious-looking gunk. As Sally pointed out, it was possible at some establishments to procure a private cabin or cubicle for a couple of extra pence. This would have provided, at the very least, a shield from prying eyes.

Doss house dwellers would take their sub-standard meat victuals home for cooking, and in the case of the Victoria Home in particular, the kitchen was situated below street level and was not patrolled by a doorman (who was only interested in checking tickets for the bedrooms above). So it really wouldn't have entailed much if the killer wished to take home his meaty treats.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Hi,

I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning...

[Rubyretro]

Rubyretro;153150]I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning..
and the light outside her room was out at that time, so he could stand in that tiny dark passage and make sure that no one was about before venturing into Dorset Street..

[Rubyretro]

Hi,
I find it hard to fathom that in the case of Mary Kelly not much blood would have soiled the killers person, in such a frenzied attack, I would be surprised if the murderer would have thought much about his own personal hygene.
I would place a sizeable bet that when he left the scene, he would have had to have gone to great lengths not to arouse suspicion.
Regards Richard.

Rubyretro;153150]I would be surprised if the killer DIDN'T give much thought to his own 'personal hygiene' !

If he WAS Hutch, then he wasn't in such a 'frenzy' beforehand, that he couldn't wait to make sure that she was asleep, not about to go out or receive another visitor, and there was nobody about.

It was probably the easiest murder not to get blood on his clothes, since he
had the privacy to undress completely (the warmth of the fire), lots of clothes to clean himself with (the ones burn't in the grate), and the light of the fire to check himself over before leaving the scene.

I'm sure that he did go to alot of trouble not to arouse suspicion after leaving the scene, but it was very early in the morning, his lodgings were extremely close by, and I'm sure that he knew exactly where to find water to wash himself. Infact, although I can't remember the exact contents of Mary's room
-maybe she had a wash bowl handily full of water (nothing easier than to pour it on the perimeter of the fire) and a bit of mirror (she appears to have been a woman proud of her appearence) ?

He only had that door to open, a tiny bit of passage to nip down, and once in the street, he was a familiar neighbourhood face once again...and it would have been still dark on a November morning..

[Versa]

to my mind its a very 'neat theory... When I first started looking for a Ripper suspect my first port of call was witnesses.

GH certainly was by his own admission one of the last people to see MJK alive and his admitted actions at the time were slightly strange, hanging around Millers Court in the middle of the night WAS a suspicious thing to do no matter which way you look at it...

For me

1. GH was living in the right area (the direction the killer was heading in after both Stride and Eddows)

2. He was acting strangely by loitering for an hour(?) outside a murder victims room.

3. His description of the 'suspect' was slightly outlandish, I've pored over many a photograph of Whitechapel doing restorations and the description he gave wasn't a common one for the area at that time.

4. For me at least the Toppy/GH issue is unresolved and regardless of that it doesn't actually matter a great deal if Toppy was THE George Hutchinson... Yes people can shout about his name being 'besmirched' but the bottom line is somebodys name will be besmirched by this and if our fear of besmirching someone's name stops us researching them then we might as well give up now....

5. Personally I think the name George Hutchinson stands a very good chance of being an alias.

I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

[Wickerman]

I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

So if you read Sarah Lewis's description of the man deemed to have been Hutchinson on watch at Millers Court, and you think Hutchinson 'might' be the typical serial killer, you must think he is not only Kelly's killer, but Jack the Ripper.

Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

How far do you want to go with this....

Regards, Jon S.

[Versa]

Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

Hi, is there a description of Hutchinson somewhere? I'll have a look tonight, I haven't seen it yet :/

[harry]

As all witness sightings can be viewed as possibly a little inacurate,give or take an inch or two ,and Hutchinson might well fit in with sightings by witnesses.But so might many others.His own stated description might, by it's apparant attention to detail,be construed as not fitting the norm as to inacuracy,lead one to believe it deserves to be viewed in a different manner,than say Long or Brown.

[Wickerman]

Hi, is there a description of Hutchinson somewhere? I'll have a look tonight, I haven't seen it yet :/

Everywhere, ....he wore disguises, don-cha-know!

...His own stated description might, by it's apparant attention to detail,be construed as not fitting the norm as to inacuracy,lead one to believe it deserves to be viewed in a different manner,than say Long or Brown.

Yes Harry, just because Lewis, Kennedy & Paumier never mentioned spats, tie-pin or watch-chain doesn't mean he was not wearing them. That which is not stated is negative evidence, and all historian know negative evidence is no evidence at all.
The detail in Hutchinson's statement is quite consistent between the press & police and suggests a higher level of accuracy.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The detail in Hutchinson's statement is quite consistent between the press & police and suggests a higher level of accuracy.

Not if he can't even have seen the some of the "detail", it doesn't.

It merely suggests that he remembered what he lied about.

Kennedy and Paumier were bogus witnesses, and should not, under any circumstances, be considered viable "Jack"-spotters.

[Abby Normal]

So if you read Sarah Lewis's description of the man deemed to have been Hutchinson on watch at Millers Court, and you think Hutchinson 'might' be the typical serial killer, you must think he is not only Kelly's killer, but Jack the Ripper.

Ok, of all the previous 'last suspect' sightings with Chapman, with Stride, with Eddowes, which one does that short stout man (Hutch) fit with? - all of them, or none?

How far do you want to go with this....

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon
I think one of the most consistant aspects of all the various descriptions are that the "suspect" was of below average height. If you beleive that Sarah's loiterer and GH were one in the same (as i do in most probability) then GH was also "short".

[Wickerman]

Not if he can't even have seen the some of the "detail", it doesn't.

You continue to change an "if" into a certainty, yet in truth you have no idea.

It merely suggests that he remembered what he lied about.

Unsubstantiated, as always.

Kennedy and Paumier were bogus witnesses,

More indignant opinions?, Like you would know, right?

and should not, under any circumstances, be considered viable "Jack"-spotters.

Whoever he was, he existed, and he was a nuisance to women, so he is a viable suspect. Thats the way to approach it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

No, Jon, that's not the way to approach it.

It certainly wasn't the way the police approached it.

We only have it on "Mrs. Paumier's" dubious authority that the man existed, and the reference to him only cropped up in a press article that appeared on 10th November amid many other notoriously bogus claims that appeared in the press at that time. There is no evidence that the police had any contact with this woman, and she certainly didn't appear at the inquest. Nor did Mrs. Kennedy, who just stole from another witness' genuine account.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

to my mind its a very 'neat theory... When I first started looking for a Ripper suspect my first port of call was witnesses.

GH certainly was by his own admission one of the last people to see MJK alive and his admitted actions at the time were slightly strange, hanging around Millers Court in the middle of the night WAS a suspicious thing to do no matter which way you look at it...

For me

1. GH was living in the right area (the direction the killer was heading in after both Stride and Eddows)

2. He was acting strangely by loitering for an hour(?) outside a murder victims room.

3. His description of the 'suspect' was slightly outlandish, I've pored over many a photograph of Whitechapel doing restorations and the description he gave wasn't a common one for the area at that time.

4. For me at least the Toppy/GH issue is unresolved and regardless of that it doesn't actually matter a great deal if Toppy was THE George Hutchinson... Yes people can shout about his name being 'besmirched' but the bottom line is somebodys name will be besmirched by this and if our fear of besmirching someone's name stops us researching them then we might as well give up now....

5. Personally I think the name George Hutchinson stands a very good chance of being an alias.

I think that this is a theory that does hold water and does fit with what we know about serial killers now.

Hi Versa
Thanks for your comments.

George Hutchinson:

-Lived in the immediate vicinity
-Places himself at the murder sight on the night of MK's murder(corraberated by Sarah Lewis)
-Admitted he Knew MK , a known prostitute, and therefor probably knew/mingled with other prostitutes.
-Gave a highly improbable detailed description of a "suspect"
-skipped the inquest

also:
-Was out of work-was this the trigger/stressor that started the killing?
-Along with the GSG and the shouting of "lipski" was the only originator of evidence that implicated a jew.
-matched majority of witness description in size and age and nationality
-probably knew whitechapel like the back of his hand


I think that in his mind (if GH was JtR) he knew he was seen well for the first time the night of the double event and along with the fact that those witnesses were jewish, was the catalyst that led to the implication of jews with the GSG and jewish A-man.