Could Hutchinson have been a minder?

[Vigilantee]

Taking two assumptions at face value, that Hutchinson was lying and that McCarthy was running the prostitutes in Miller's Court, could the former have been in the pay of the latter?

We know McCarthy employed ex army man Indian Harry as a 'rent collector' and Hutchinson is described as 'of military bearing', with his possible Romford connections sometimes taken as a further military connection (the large barracks there making it a military town), so could he have been another ex army man employed by McCarthy?

We know he knew Kelly and gave her money occassionally and was living close by. One reason for his employment could have been as a minder to keep an eye on the prostitutes with the Ripper about. McCarthy would not want to lose a prostitute as valuable as Kelly, given her youth and relative good looks. Hiring extra security would make sense.

This would then explain his subsequent behavior, real or pretended. The fact that it appears to be false might indicat that he was not any use on the night of the murder and wanted to avoid any 'repercussions'. He thus fabricates a story making him a major witness, checking the mysterious client closely and perhaps even lied about his standing vigil as long as he could. In reality maybe he was in the pub all the time or not back from Romford.

Abbeline's faith in him as a witness and not a suspect, plus his minimal interaction with McCarthy might say something about the relation between the local Police and the local organised crime, for which Whitechapel was to become notorious.

Curiously I also read on here somewhere that Hutchinson later became an 'insurance collecter', perhaps this was a euphemism and is criminal career had moved up a notch??

[Ben]

Interesting idea, Vigilantee.

If Hutchinson was a minder, then he'd hardly demonstrated his "minding" abilities that night! I have my doubts that he'd allow himelf to become so public a figure if he was employed in that capacity and failed so badly a it. There would be others besides McCarthy who would have known about his minding/vetting role, and by going to police and press when he did, he risked being booted off the security team by McCarthy (for being a lousy-minder), and exposed as a liar by those who knew his true role as a minder.

Best regards,
Ben

[halomanuk]

Hutchinson was seen around the area many times over a duration so if he was a minder then im sure he would have had many other duties to perform and not just be constantly seen around as he was.
I think he just had a big crush or facination with MJK and liked to 'keep an eye on her' .

[Observer]

Hi all

I think you're right Ben, If Hutchinson had been a minder I'm sure it would have come out in the wash eventually, someone would have fingered him.

Observer

[perrymason]

Im really beginning to wonder whether we should be assuming that Sarah's Wideawake Hat Man was indeed Hutchinson.

If his suspect story was false, its likely he is either guilty of issuing false statements and wasting police time for no other reason than mischief, or he felt in was in his best interests to do so. How might he have benefitted by becoming Sarah's loiterer?

Best regards.

[Ben]

Quite so, Observer.

Hi Mike,

How might he have benefitted by becoming Sarah's loiterer?

He woudn't have benefitted by coming forward if he wasn't Lewis' loiterer. If he was, then a false account would have both "legitimised" his presence at a crime scene and diverted suspicion in a false and convenient direction.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
He woudn't have benefitted by coming forward if he wasn't Lewis' loiterer. If he was, then a false account would have both "legitimised" his presence at a crime scene and diverted suspicion in a false and convenient direction.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

There is a scenario where he would benefit by assuming that mans position, and by adding his friendly watchout story. If he was in that area that night, and up to no good, and dressed in a manner much like Wideawake Man...he explains his position in the neighborhood, not just as Sarah's loiterer. For example, what if he was watching the court that night, but earlier than when Sarah sees her man, or a bit later on. He might not be certain he wasnt seen by someone else, before or after WHM was seen, so... by inserting himself into that man shoes he can explain his presence not only there, make it friendly..but also in the general area that night. Pre and post Wideawake sighting.

If of course he gave the tale to conceal some criminal activity of his.

Best regards Ben.

[Vigilantee]

I'm not totally convinced by the minder theory myself, but I also find the 'crush' theory unconvincing too, as theres no real evidence for it, plus I don't think H commited the crime, so I'll stick with it a bit longer as perhaps the best explanation of events that night.

As far as H's poor minding goes, it would be a tricky job, keeping an eye on them while giving them space to do their job and not scaring off punters, plus its likely that an old skinflint like McCarthy had him minding all the pros under his control. That plus a fairly universal human incompetence and H's love of pubs would probably doom the task to failure.

While his 'watching' could be the behavior of a stalker as much as a minder, his scanning of the client is very minderish and odd for a mere stalker.

Consider this for a scenario, H is a failed minder, his career is over, he may even be punished, so what does he do, he tells McCarthy he saw the Ripper, creating a false story, and almost stopped him, but will probably recognise him again. This makes him a useful minder again, and saves his career and maybe his life. The Ripper may not attack McCarthy's stable again but he can rent his minder out to other pimps willing to pay the price. He's not going to the cops for reasons you describe, so he doesnt turn up at the inquest.

Now unfortunately he's been seen at the crime scene and becomes a potential suspect, this is not at all convenient. The local crims have probably achieved an understanding with the cops to help each other during the Ripper scare, so McCarthy can happilly send H to the police station to clear his name by becoming their best witness, and explaining the situation off record, the cops turn a blind eye in return for his assistance. They may even help him clean up his rubbish public statement. This will draw attention to H, which might normally be undesirable but its better than having a full police investigation in the Miller's Court area involving a hunt for the 'watcher'. McCarthy may even have sent him on a favour exchange motive, the police then may not have been as totally uncorruptable as they are today

Its amazing the cops took his nonsense seriously of course, though another possibility would be they eventually realised he was lying, and maybe even got him to confess, but instead of charging him and taking revenge on McCarthy, they used his awkward position to turn him into a grass and preserved his account publically while rejecting it privately. Fortunately for H the Ripper never strikes again so he's never tested and everything eventually dies down.

A lot of speculation but it would explain all the 'facts' perfectly perhaps.

Interesting idea, Vigilantee.

If Hutchinson was a minder, then he'd hardly demonstrated his "minding" abilities that night! I have my doubts that he'd allow himelf to become so public a figure if he was employed in that capacity and failed so badly a it. There would be others besides McCarthy who would have known about his minding/vetting role, and by going to police and press when he did, he risked being booted off the security team by McCarthy (for being a lousy-minder), and exposed as a liar by those who knew his true role as a minder.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Vigilantee,

he tells McCarthy he saw the Ripper, creating a false story, and almost stopped him, but will probably recognise him again. This makes him a useful minder

Surely that makes him the worst sort of minder imaginable? The sort of minder who, by his own account, allowed one of McCarthy's flock into the clutches of Jack the Ripper? Telling McCarthy about it would have been bad enough, but if he told everyone else about it too his minding days would probably have been over. His reported actions and movements that night - following the couple and then installing himself on the opposite side of the the street - rendered him essentially useless as a preventative measure in the event of the client striking, whereas a minder worthy of that job title would surely have approached the client personally, checked for weapons etc.

and explaining the situation off record, the cops turn a blind eye in return for his assistance.

The problem here is that the police did discuss Hutchinson "off record" and said nothing about him being a minder, or that he was sent by McCarthy etc.

I'd say that it was in Hutchinson's interest alone to fabricate a suspect description and deflect suspicion away from "the watcher" in the process, and that it had nothing to do with McCarthy. Incidentally, the "scanning" of the client would only seem odd for a stalker or potential killer if he really did scan the client. If he lied about that, it would make sense from the point of view of someone wishing to divert attention in the convenient direction of a surly out-of-place Jew.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
When hinting at Hutchinsons motives, the first thing to assertain is the identity of that person, it is simply not good enough to suggest that he was a Minder, a stalker, a pimp, a obsessed fan, even a murderer? how about a mugger.and of course McCarthys number one man...
The fact is.
I simply have to repeat myself , the only name given to us , as the actual man who witnessed the events with Astracan/ Kelly, was from one Reg Hutchinson, whose father was George william Topping Hutchinson , born oct 1st 1866, and named as that very man.
If this was the case, then it is simply not acceptable that he was any of the descriptions I have mentioned in my first paragraph.
The fact is George William T Hutchinson was a doiwn to earth guy, and his son refers to him as being honest/observant/ music lover/ married man[ happy] far from the 'Lying Lies of George' image.
So what next guys..?
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Richard,

Of course, it's quite possible for a chap to have dabbled as a pimp during his younger days in the harsh environment of Spitalfields, and still have gone on to become a respectable adult.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam,
I appreciate what you are saying however, is it not a well known saying a leopard never changes its spots?
I have a rather hyper job, and nearly every day my good wife says to me 'Try and keep calm..' which I endeavour to do, however I bet a pound to a penny ,that dispite my efforts to remain in control, I will end the day being a old 'worry guts'.
So the argument that Gh, as a young man, may have been nothing like his mature years does not ring true, I have always had the same personality, and always will, as that aspect is impossible to change.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

I have always had the same personality, and always will, as that aspect is impossible to change.

Oooh, I wouldn't know, Richard. I doubt - and rather hope - that you've never had to suffer the terrible deprivation and indignities foisted on the East End poor. It's amazing the extent to which behaviour might need to be modified, simply to survive under such degraded conditions.

[Ben]

The fact is.
I simply have to repeat myself , the only name given to us , as the actual man who witnessed the events with Astracan/ Kelly, was from one Reg Hutchinson, whose father was George william Topping Hutchinson , born oct 1st 1866, and named as that very man.

No, Richard.

I'm afraid that isn't a fact at all.

George William Topping Hutchinson is not the only name given to us as the "real" 1888 George Hutchinson. He is one name among several suggested for his identity, and one the weakest candidates out of an already implausible bunch. It's also not a fact - not remotely so - that GWTH was a "down to earth guy". You can't know that. That claim was made in the Ripper and the Royals, which contains numerous other claims that also have no basis in fact.

Regards,
Ben

[Vigilantee]

Hi Vigilantee,
Surely that makes him the worst sort of minder imaginable? The sort of minder who, by his own account, allowed one of McCarthy's flock into the clutches of Jack the Ripper? Telling McCarthy about it would have been bad enough, but if he told everyone else about it too his minding days would probably have been over. His reported actions and movements that night - following the couple and then installing himself on the opposite side of the the street - rendered him essentially useless as a preventative measure in the event of the client striking, whereas a minder worthy of that job title would surely have approached the client personally, checked for weapons etc.

Well as I said I think its a long shot, but I think all the other possibilities are even more implausible, so I'll flog it a bit longer. The hypothetical scenario is that McCarthy told him to check all the clients and keep an eye on the whores, but like most people H is lazy or incompetent so does neither, or very little, correctly thinking its very unlikely that Jack will strike at McCarthy's stable given the number of tarts in Whitechapel. McCarthy will never know this as he's probably quite dim and not a very scary old pimp.
H just takes the money to sit in pub or visit his folks in Romford. Most crooks are dishonest remember, this is why successful bosses are ruthless to their underlings, and why they are also rare. However disaster occurs and Jack strikes. H is now in deep trouble, McCarthy knows he's failed so telling him is no confession. Whether he tells him or not he'll either never be employed again or possibly injured or killed, if McCarthy wants to set an example that he's not the silly old sod H seems to think he is.

So H lies and tells him he *almost* stopped Jack under impossible conditions and has some important info. This is a bad move perhaps but the best short of immigration, he has little other choice, its the only thing that might save him. This is why his statement portrays himself as a diligent minder, or at least present, it was contrived for Mc C not anyone else, it's internal information for their 'gang'. When he has to make a statement to save his skin, the statement must not be different to that already given to Mc C, but can distort and hide his real whereabouts and role, while clearing him as a suspect. As for the Romford visit perhaps he had been allowed this visit and had someone covering for him till 2am. If he didn't return till 3am he could still be the watcher AND lie about being around at 2am to cover his arse again.

The problem here is that the police did discuss Hutchinson "off record" and said nothing about him being a minder, or that he was sent by McCarthy etc.

How do you know this, if it was off the record?? By off the record I mean nothing written down anywhere ever, and word of mouth between a few people only. Knowledge of who sent him and why only applies to the framed version, and they could equally have just realised he was lying and guessed why without knowing for sure.

I'd say that it was in Hutchinson's interest alone to fabricate a suspect description and deflect suspicion away from "the watcher" in the process, and that it had nothing to do with McCarthy.

Perhaps, but again maybe the least worst of a range of bad options.
But then what's an alternative account of the 'watching'. If he had a crush on Kelly it would be public knowledge in that kind of close community (as it would if he was a minder too, but that would not be safe for them to talk about, or likely given the 'code' regarding such things), the police would have been suspicious in this case. With a crush he's liable to want the murderer caught anyway, not make it more unlikely by making up a false suspect. And without a crush he's unlikely to be involved in the murder as he has no motive. It seems unlikely that he was protecting another culprit too, far more rewarding to turn him in, particularly after the amnesty.

Incidentally, the "scanning" of the client would only seem odd for a stalker or potential killer if he really did scan the client. If he lied about that, it would make sense from the point of view of someone wishing to divert attention in the convenient direction of a surly out-of-place Jew.

Well my point here would be, yes he probably did lie, but why say he 'scanned' the client, its an odd thing for anyone but a minder to do, and adds an unnecessary and puzzling detail to his account. Surely an attention diverter (or even an attention seeker) should make it simple and believable, with no curious details, something like 'then he glanced up at me and I saw his evil face'. The fact he says he 'scanned' him (a lie) means to me he either thought this normal behaviour and something he actually would do, or that it was an element of the story targeted for an audience that would expect him to do that. So he either thinks like a minder or is expected to act like one. If it quacks like a duck and walks like one....