Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi CD,

According to Hutchinson's own testimony, he knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive. That makes him a suspect or as they say here in the States "a person of interest."

But that "according to Hutchinson's own testimony" makes all the difference. Unless they were in possession of proof to back up that testimony, there was every possibility that he was yet another bogus witness who wasn't there when he claimed to be. You'll note that Packer and Violenia both claimed to have been at the crime scene and were the last to see the victim alive, and yet neither became a suspect once their evidence was doubted. The were simply bogus witnesses, in the minds of the police. This is apparently what happened with Hutchinson - when the "cracks" in his story began to show, he went simply from legitimate witness to probably bogus witness.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Packer's sighting was no later than 12:30, so not the last to see Stride alive.

Violenia was easily deduced as a false witness, and if the description offered by Mrs Long had fit Violenia then the end result may have been different.
As it happens it must not have and besides, Violenia failed in his efforts as a false witness.

There is no parallel between Packer/Violenia and Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Packer's sighting was no later than 12:30, so not the last to see Stride alive.

But nor was Hutchinson the last to see Kelly alive. That distinction would go to the suspect seen in her company, if the overall statement was believed. Packer still claimed to be at the crime scene at a time relevant to Stride's death, just as Violenia claimed to have been at the crime scene at a time relevant to Chapman's death. According to some of the arguments employed here, that ought to qualify both of them suspect status, and yet neither was considered a suspect, thus reinforcing the reality that Hutchinson wasn't either.

[Paddy]

Witnesses

Both Schwartz and Hutchinson would have had to be checked out for the reasons you state ie : could be the killer or a liar etc
Messages were passed between home office City police and H Division.
I think they were just playing it safe with the inquests. Now the city police were involved and Matthews at the home office. They had to really play it by the book. They would have had to check out Hutchs' Romford trip. Also drop the Lipski bit as they were not sure what he said and a bit too political.
I think they were terrified of racial unrest at that time.

My great uncle Henry Cox did say that they got on the track after the last murder. (yes I know what you are going to say, which murder)
It could have been Hutchinsons statement that enabled that?

As for Packer, I am intrigued in a bit I read once. He said the man he saw with Liz lived over the next street? Which fits well with Kozminskis family home in Providence street (next street to Berner st) I suppose it was a newspaper that said it but I cant seem to find it.

Just my thoughts !
Pat........................

[Wickerman]

But nor was Hutchinson the last to see Kelly alive. That distinction would go to the suspect seen in her company, if the overall statement was believed.

Ah, Ben, you must have an independent witness, not one mentioned by the suspect/witness himself.

Stride was seen by PC Smith & Schwartz after Packer, neither of these were mentioned by Packer so it is confirmed independently that Packer was not a parallel for Hutchinson.

According to some of the arguments employed here, that ought to qualify both of them suspect status, and yet neither was considered a suspect, thus reinforcing the reality that Hutchinson wasn't either.

None of the arguments I am familiar with would include either Violenia or Packer.

[Ben]

They would have had to check out Hutchs' Romford trip

Trouble is, Paddy, it wouldn't have achieved very much.

If they checked it out and found the Romford claim to be legit, it would do nothing to verify his activity once he arrived in Spitalfields. On the other hand, if Hutchinson lied about Romford, it was a very simple thing to get away with - just don't mention any particular address or person and thus avoid the risk of contradiction.

My great uncle Henry Cox did say that they got on the track after the last murder. (yes I know what you are going to say, which murder)
It could have been Hutchinsons statement that enabled that?

Probably not, since Hutchinson's statement was ultimately discredited.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure why it's essential to have quite such a close "parallel". Hutchinson, Violenia, and Packer all claimed to have witnessed the victim a aroud the time and place of her death, and yet despite the fact that the three of them were soon discredited, none of them became a suspect. It is only necessary to draw distinctions between those who saw her last, second-to-last, third-to-last or whatever if it's being suggested that only witnesses who claimed to see her last warrant investigation as a suspect, and that the police don't even countenance the possibility of the others being responsible.

Unless that's the argument, there's no real need to strive for too unrealistically close a parallel.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

The dilemma you have inherited is that one press source (Star) cries about him being discredited, when another other press source (Echo) merely claims for reduced importance - not the same thing. While various press sources throughout November publish articles concerning the continued interest by police.
And nothing from the police about rejecting Hutchinson for any reason.

Your argument lacks consistency.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The dilemma you have inherited is that one press source (Star) cries about him being discredited, when another other press source (Echo) merely claims for reduced importance - not the same thing.

Agreed, and the reason for this was that Hutchinson's press disclosures - published on 14th November - further undermined his already very tenuous credibility in the minds of the police. Hence, the "very reduced importance" attached to his account on 13th had further downgraded to "discredited" by 15th on account of his press embellishments. No consistency in my argument here, just an awareness of the chronology of events.

While various press sources throughout November publish articles concerning the continued interest by police.

Nope.

Nothing of the sort, I'm afraid.

No evidence at all of the police actively seeking Astrakhan man after 15th November.

And nothing from the police about rejecting Hutchinson for any reason.

Actually, there was the information fed straight from the police to the Echo about the very specific reason for Hutchinson being rejected.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
How I do enjoy these Hutchinson threads, they are always expressed passionately .
What it all boils down to , is what camp each one of us is in.
The three questions to ask are.
Was George Hutchinson telling the truth , exactly as he recalled, and done so with no intentions to mislead , and with no interior motive,?
Was George Hutchinson inventing an scenario, for reasons of financial gain , or being in the limelight, or was it because of fear?..if so in what context.
Was George Hutchinson working as a pimp, or had intentions, to mug any punter that may have been a candidate for money...or indeed was he the killer of Mary Kelly, or even Jack?.
The above seem to be the most likely choices we should base our opinions around.
If one considers all options, one could base speculation among all three.
Personally, I would suggest that we give our George the benefit of the doubt, and go for the No intentions to mislead .
But in truth the only bit that I find unlikely is that he was a killer.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

But in truth the only bit that I find unlikely is that he was a killer.

The same was said of Sutcliffe, Richard. And Bundy. And Shipman. And Samples. The reality is that such men remain at liberty to commit their murders precisely because they don't look or behave like murderers.

This, of course, does not mean that Hutchinson must have been a killer. But the fact remains that he was almost certainly at a crime scene at a time critical to a murder, withheld what was crucially important information for three days, and when finally he did come forward detailed to investigators a demonstrably untrue sequence of events.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Gary.
I except what you are saying, but I personally have viewed it, as the person I have always believed George Hutchinson to be.
That is Topping ..
That being the case, I would suggest that his personality was not that of a homicidal maniac, although I have no wish to paint him as 'Mr Honest'.
It is entirely possible that he was after financial reward, I believe his son Reg, was not the type to turn down money, I believe when he quoted his father's account in the ''Ripper and the Royal's'', he was promised by the author if the book did well, he would compensate him.
Regards Richard,

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Richard. Unfortunately, I see little or no evidence to support the contention that Toppy and the witness Hutchinson were one and the same. I wish it were otherwise, but there you go. Over the last ten years or so I've become increasingly convinced that the man who gave the Astrakhan statement did so under an assumed name. If so, the prospect of identifying him and piecing together his personal history is virtually nonexistent.

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

The three questions to ask are.
Was George Hutchinson telling the truth , exactly as he recalled, and done so with no intentions to mislead , and with no interior motive,?

With no reasonable indication to the contrary, this is pretty much the view I prefer to take.

Was George Hutchinson inventing an scenario, for reasons of financial gain , or being in the limelight, or was it because of fear?..if so in what context.

Some lame ulterior motive is always possible, this was the East End afterall, and the residents were hardly angels. But were any potential motives directly associated with the murder? - I think not.

Was George Hutchinson working as a pimp, or had intentions, to mug any punter that may have been a candidate for money...or indeed was he the killer of Mary Kelly, or even Jack?.

Potentially a mugger of this well-dressed client? - possibly.
Mary's killer, or even 'Jack' himself?, hardly likely, the least likely option on my list.

The negative criticism of Hutchinson all stem from incomplete knowledge of his actual movements and a misunderstanding of what he really claimed to have done & seen.

[Ben]

I keep encountering this bizarre reasoning that asserts that "Yes, I will acknowledge the possibility that Hutchinson may have had some dodgy reason for lying, but I will resist at all costs any consideration that he might have been the killer". There is evidence that he loitered opposite the crime scene, and that he lied about his reasons for doing so once he'd realised he'd been seen loitering. His statement was discredited because of doubts over his credibility, and yet the evidence of Sarah Lewis makes it almost certain that he was the man she saw. Yes, there's a good deal we still don't know, but these are nonetheless adequate grounds for legitimate suspicion for any modern investigator, and it's simply churlish to argue otherwise, especially when there are so many obviously weak "suspects" touted as such.

[Wickerman]

There is nothing bizarre about avoiding the temptation to interpret every activity as related to a murder. People had lives to live and criminal activity quite unrelated to Kelly's murder continued unabated.

Let us not forget the post-office robbery in Mitre Sq. over the same night that Eddowes was murdered.

Hutchinson's intentions towards Kelly's well-dressed client may not have been entirely honorable, but that does not make him her murderer.