No announcement yet.

Innocent, By George!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Interesting article in this month's Whitechapel Journal by Ian Porter about Hutchinson that calls into question many of the perceived statements made by him. To summarise
    Firstly the idea that he had walked back from Romford because he spent all his money.A pub close to Commercial St called the Pride of Spitalfields was known locally as the Romford, so its more likely he had pissed his money down the pub.
    Secondly Hutchinson said he chatted to Mary at the corner of Flower and Dean and had a clear view of the man with Mary was with because of the light from the Queen's Head pub but that pub is not at the corner of Flower and Dean St but on the corner of Fashion St 120 yards from where he claimed he saw Mary and friend.There was no building on Fashion st that would cast a light. Apparently Hutchison originally said he was outside The Ten Bells which is further away from F&D but someone had crossed this out and written Queens Head. All this further points to Huchinson telling porky pies.
    And the oddity of a man flaunting a gold chain on a waistcoat with his jacket open on a cold night in some of the worst streets in London without being robbed.No one else saw this man.
    Also Porter questions whether Abberline believed him. In Abberline's covering report it he says he interrogated Hutchison[ not interviewed] which does not suggest he believed Hutch.Also he had Hutch see the body[ possibly to gage his reaction] This seems to suggests Abberline had him down as a suspect.
    Miss Marple


    • #17
      “happened to have occurred to him as soon as it became public knowledge that Sarah Lewis had seen someone”
      Ben we only have your word for that. I would strongly contend that this information is unlikely to have become public knowledge until it appeared in the newspapers.

      Mis Marple...
      “Firstly the idea that he had walked back from Romford because he spent all his money.A pub close to Commercial St called the Pride of Spitalfields was known locally as the Romford, so its more likely he had pissed his money down the pub.”
      This is a non starter as Hutchinson said he was walking back down Whitechapel Road (which is on the route back from Romford) and saw the time on St Mary’s Church.
      The church was not on the route from ‘The Romford’ to Commercial Street.
      I agree with you – or rather Ian Porter - about the ‘interrogation’ clue as to Abberline’s reaction to Hutchinson.


      • #18
        I would strongly contend that this information is unlikely to have become public knowledge until it appeared in the newspapers.
        I know you "strongly contend" as much, Lechmere, but I equally strongly disagree for reasons I've already expounded on t'other thread. Hutchinson clearly did hear of Lewis' evidence via some channel, or else we're compelled to accept that his coming forward so soon after the inquest amounts to pure coincidence, which is unlikely in the extreme. I suggest drawing a veil over this for now, since we'd be duplicating the "wrong night" thread.

        Thanks for the information about Ian Porter's article, Miss Marple. I'll check it out!

        All the best,


        • #19
          Latchmere where does it say Hutchison was coming down the Whitechapel Rd ?
          In his statement he says he he saw MK coming down Thrawl St off the Commercial Rd, nothing about Whitechapel St in the original statement. He seemed to embroider his account for the newspapers. He would not have bumped into Mary on the Whitechapel Rd, some of his geography does not add up. Adding the bit about the time by the clock would add veracity to his statement.I have never believed his improbable story about gold man
          The Idea that Hutchison walked to Romford and back!has become so much part of the mythology that no one questions it. The most obvious explanations are often the truest ones.IF HE WALKED to Romford how would he spend his money? He went to the pub spent all his money, but thats too simple for some people.Is there any independent witness account that Hutchison was in Romford? no, its supposition based on a presumption.
          Miss Marple
          Last edited by miss marple; 02-13-2011, 06:49 PM.


          • #20
            Miss Marple - it is based on Hutchinson's own words - he told various newspapers - this is just one...

            Daily News 14 November 1888
            The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said:-
            "On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street..."

            He could have been lying of course - but that is what he said. Similar accounts were in numerous newspapers.


            • #21
              Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
              Does anyone believe,as i do, that George is completly innocent of any part in Mary Kelly's murder, or any other named victim of ' Jack the Ripper '.
              Hi Scorpio and everyone.

              Yes, I believe that George Hutchinson is completely innocent of any complicity in any of the Whitechapel Murders.

              Best regards,


              • #22
                Any person who cames forward and places himself at the scene of a crime,needs to be carefully studied.The question of whether a belief in guilt or innocence is held,is through the interpretation of the reasons given for being there.In the case of Hutchinson,more so than in any other witness statement,there is more to interpret.We do not have to rely on hearsay. We have a signed original statement. Some believe Hutchinson is being truthfull,some think otherwise.While there is doubt,it is surely not unreasonable to presume guilt of some sort.


                • #23

                  "it is surely not unreasonable to presume guilt of some sort."

                  What sorts may we choose from?

                  The best,


                  • #24
                    I believe Hutchinson killed no one. I believe... no I am positive he is Topping Hutchinson and he was married, a plumber (like his father), and had children, one of whom was Reginald. This is all borne out by identical signatures on the police statement and on public records and cannot be reasonably refuted.

                    I haven't a clue as to his coming forward in the Kelly case, but I surmise it was about his being a young man and trying to make a buck. In that case, and in only that case, Hutchinson was guilty of something.



                    • #25
                      Hello Mike.
                      Its reassuring that at least two of us, are still on the battlefield of common sense.
                      The signatures as you rightly state, are compelling, but that debate has now dissapeared back into the archives, shelved so to speak.
                      The reason for my insistance is, I am the only one on Casebook, that was not reading the account by Reg in the 'Ripper and the Royals' for the first time, I knew all about it...
                      Long before Reg had any contact with Fairclough.
                      So how did I Know that? the elusive broadcast. perhaps?
                      I feel many on Casebook are making two much of Hutchinsons involvement, he relayed a sighting to the police, he was interrogated, he attempted to trace the man he saw, but failed, and he faded into the area of unimportance.
                      The words I shall never forget, words that were not in Faircloughs book.
                      'It was my fathers biggest regret, dispite his efforts , nothing came of it'
                      sums it up Mike.
                      Regards Richard.


                      • #26
                        I've never thought Hutchinson guilty of anything more than maybe over-embellishing his description...........


                        • #27

                          It might be this interview that you speak of is where Fairclough got his initial information and tracked down Reggie.



                          • #28
                            Of being trthful,as I indicated in my post above.


                            • #29
                              That should read truthfull.


                              • #30
                                Aha - the wider perspective. Well, much as I see what it is that makes people argue like this, I simply don´t agree. I see no reason at all to conclude that Hutchinson lied in any capacity. He may have told Abberline that he was in Dorset Street on Friday morning, whereas in reality he was there already on THURSDAY morning, but I don´t regard that a lie, since it would be an honest mistake.
                                Other than that, no - Astrakhan man was described in detail, but Hutchinson had AT LEAST around a quarter of an hour to pick things up (and if he was Toppy - which I think he was - he was a man who never took written notes about what he needed to bring to a plumbing site, no matter how large the job was; he kept it ALL in his head!), he got a good, close look at the man - AND he said that he believed that man lived in the vicinity, pointing us straight in the direction of a possibility that he had had opportunity to observe him before!
                                Other things, like for example the possibility to make out conversation from 30 meters, have been brought up as possibly pointing to Hutchinson lying - but as you have seen, it is something that cannot be used in this fashion. Sure enough, there are elements that are unusual in Hutchinson´s testimony. But none of them points in any way to him being a liar, unless we decide that we want them to.

                                The best,