Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hutch evidence

    With regard to George Hutchinson(GH), did the police ever corroborate the following:
    • Whether he was in Romford on 8th Nov 1888? and what he was doing there?
    • Who he spoke to at Victoria Home lodging house about coming forward?
    • How he first met MJK?

    There's no written evidence to prove they did and as a policeman once told me "if it wasn't written down or recorded then it did not happen!"
    I can't seem to locate any written evidence to prove they did and as a policeman once told me "if it wasn't written down or recorded then it did not happen!"

    Or did Abberline not bother asking him these pertinent questions because he considered that no Englishman would have done these horrible crimes?
    Which leads me onto my next question, I often see and hear quotes stating that No Englishman (by that I assume of any class) would carry out a murder like this? what exactly is this unfounded assumption based on? If they took this approach which I truly hope they didn't then it would have colored their judgement and overlooked evidence.
    Because as far as I recall there had been many murders of a horrific nature committed by Englishmen.

    Here's a few examples:
    • Frederick Baker mutiliated Fanny Adams in 1867 (this is where the term sweet FA or sweet fanny adams comes from. A naval slang term), Hampshire. Here's an extract from my own writing "Her severed head had been mounted on two hop poles, one ear cut off, her eyes gouged out, and her face slashed. Baker cut up the body and scattered the parts was to try to hide his crime, but he then placed Fanny’s head ostentatiously on a pole as if to make a statement. If his intention was to sicken and shock, he certainly achieved it. "
    • Ratcliffe Highway murders 1811. Quote from my own work "Struggling to take in the horrors before them, Murray suddenly whispered, “What about the baby? They’ve got a little baby!” The two men hurried upstairs, where they found a truly tragic sight before them. Tim Marr junior, just 3 months old, lay dead in his blood-soaked cot. He had been hit over the head and one side of his face was crushed, and his throat slit with his head almost decapitated"
    • In 1874 Henry Wainwright took Harriet Lane to his brush factory, shot her in the head and slit her throat. Buried her under the floorboards but used chloride of lime instead of quicklime. The smell got so bad that he then recovered the body, chopped her up into little pieces and placed her inside to large canvas parcels.So why did they believe Englishman of any class were beyond approach? English women were not afforded the same glowing reviews?

    And my final question: why Did the police drop Hutch as a witness so quickly? i'm sure I read Abberline stated in 1903 that the only useful witness was one that saw Jack from the rear (Elizabeth long) or was a foreigner. (Joseph Lawende/Schwartz). Hutch does not fit into either of those categories.


    thanks


  • #2
    Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post
    With regard to George Hutchinson(GH), did the police ever corroborate the following:
    • Whether he was in Romford on 8th Nov 1888? and what he was doing there?
    • Who he spoke to at Victoria Home lodging house about coming forward?
    • How he first met MJK?

    There's no written evidence to prove they did and as a policeman once told me "if it wasn't written down or recorded then it did not happen!"

    Hi Mr. T.
    We know from Abberline's own words that he interviewed Hutchinson following the statement given to Sgt. Badham at 6:00pm on the 12th.
    A written record of this interview has not survived, so we cannot criticize him by asking, "Why didn't Hutchinson say this, or that", when we have no record of exactly what was said in the interview.


    Or did Abberline not bother asking him these pertinent questions because he considered that no Englishman would have done these horrible crimes?Which leads me onto my next question, I often see and hear quotes stating that No Englishman (by that I assume of any class) would carry out a murder like this? what exactly is this unfounded assumption based on?
    I think you are confusing opinions of the press with police opinion.
    Many years after the case I think Anderson said something similar, yet Anderson was only trying to bolster his personal theory.
    I don't think you will find any official police opinion contemporary with the murders that supports that line of thinking.


    And my final question: why Did the police drop Hutch as a witness so quickly?
    I've never understood that question. What is it based on?
    Every witness faded from the case after a few days, except one. The only example we have of a witness who was contacted years later is Lawende, and the reason should be quite obvious. Lawende had a permanent business address where the police knew they could find him.
    Citizens like Schwartz, Mrs Long, Hutchinson, possibly Mary Cox, all were tenants, renters, who as like most Eastenders would move around with no forwarding address, or in some cases use different names.
    Of course they are going to use the one witness they could find within the hour.


    i'm sure I read Abberline stated in 1903 that the only useful witness was one that saw Jack from the rear (Elizabeth long) or was a foreigner. (Joseph Lawende/Schwartz). Hutch does not fit into either of those categories.
    thanks
    After Abberline retired he developed his own personal theory that George Chapman had been the killer, and most of what he said was geared to align with that theory.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi there, personally I think they dropped him as a witness cause it was obvious he was not telling the truth, at least in some regards. His vivid recall of the suspect is just beyond the bounds of possibility for me. If he lied about that he may have been lying about the rest of his testimony. There are so many conflicting descriptions of the victims appearances let alone the villains that I take them all with a pinch of salt myself.

      Comment


      • #4
        [QUOTE=

        Or did Abberline not bother asking him these pertinent questions because he considered that no Englishman would have done these horrible crimes?
        Which leads me onto my next question, I often see and hear quotes stating that No Englishman (by that I assume of any class) would carry out a murder like this? what exactly is this unfounded assumption based on? If they took this approach which I truly hope they didn't then it would have colored their judgement and overlooked evidence.
        Because as far as I recall there had been many murders of a horrific nature committed by Englishmen.


        [/QUOTE]

        English society at that time thought themselves superior to the "barbarians" of all the countries they had colonised. I am not here to start a debate on the British empire or criticise any English person of today, of course, but I think it came down to the fact it was easier to blame "the other".

        Comment


        • #5
          Or did Abberline not bother asking him these pertinent questions because he considered that no Englishman would have done these horrible crimes?

          I would like to believe that Abberline was smarter than that. But even if he had such a mindset how far would it go? If when interviewing Hutchinson a bloody knife fell out of his pocket along with bloody organs would Abberline have thought hmmm....that is pretty suspicious but on the other hand he is an Englishman?

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #6
            Very well summed up there Jon.
            I'm not going to link to it, or such....

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


              Hi Mr. T.
              We know from Abberline's own words that he interviewed Hutchinson following the statement given to Sgt. Badham at 6:00pm on the 12th.
              A written record of this interview has not survived, so we cannot criticize him by asking, "Why didn't Hutchinson say this, or that", when we have no record of exactly what was said in the interview.




              I think you are confusing opinions of the press with police opinion.
              Many years after the case I think Anderson said something similar, yet Anderson was only trying to bolster his personal theory.
              I don't think you will find any official police opinion contemporary with the murders that supports that line of thinking.




              I've never understood that question. What is it based on?
              Every witness faded from the case after a few days, except one. The only example we have of a witness who was contacted years later is Lawende, and the reason should be quite obvious. Lawende had a permanent business address where the police knew they could find him.
              Citizens like Schwartz, Mrs Long, Hutchinson, possibly Mary Cox, all were tenants, renters, who as like most Eastenders would move around with no forwarding address, or in some cases use different names.
              Of course they are going to use the one witness they could find within the hour.




              After Abberline retired he developed his own personal theory that George Chapman had been the killer, and most of what he said was geared to align with that theory.

              Brilliant post.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hutchinson tells the Pall Mall Gazette (14th Nov) that the man he saw was carrying a parcel covered in "American cloth".

                Was American cloth something that was distinctive at the time?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oilcloth - Wikipedia
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                    Hi Mr. T.
                    We know from Abberline's own words that he interviewed Hutchinson following the statement given to Sgt. Badham at 6:00pm on the 12th.
                    A written record of this interview has not survived, so we cannot criticize him by asking, "Why didn't Hutchinson say this, or that", when we have no record of exactly what was said in the interview.




                    I think you are confusing opinions of the press with police opinion.
                    Many years after the case I think Anderson said something similar, yet Anderson was only trying to bolster his personal theory.
                    I don't think you will find any official police opinion contemporary with the murders that supports that line of thinking.




                    I've never understood that question. What is it based on?
                    Every witness faded from the case after a few days, except one. The only example we have of a witness who was contacted years later is Lawende, and the reason should be quite obvious. Lawende had a permanent business address where the police knew they could find him.
                    Citizens like Schwartz, Mrs Long, Hutchinson, possibly Mary Cox, all were tenants, renters, who as like most Eastenders would move around with no forwarding address, or in some cases use different names.
                    Of course they are going to use the one witness they could find within the hour.




                    After Abberline retired he developed his own personal theory that George Chapman had been the killer, and most of what he said was geared to align with that theory.
                    hey wick
                    ive often wondered why they didnt use PC smith as a witness later on. any thoughts on this?

                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
                      Hutchinson tells the Pall Mall Gazette (14th Nov) that the man he saw was carrying a parcel covered in "American cloth".

                      Was American cloth something that was distinctive at the time?
                      A quick Google seems to reveal 'American cloth' as a term used in the nineteenth century for oilcloth (linen cloth with a layer of boiled linseed oil). Something which makes me think of my grandmother's table cloth.

                      https://www.lexico.com/definition/american_cloth

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheTypeWriter View Post
                        Hi there, personally I think they dropped him as a witness cause it was obvious he was not telling the truth, at least in some regards. His vivid recall of the suspect is just beyond the bounds of possibility for me. If he lied about that he may have been lying about the rest of his testimony. There are so many conflicting descriptions of the victims appearances let alone the villains that I take them all with a pinch of salt myself.
                        I agree with this. I posted on another thread about officer Donald Fouke's description of a suspect (the zodiac) at night time in the Presidio heights area of San Fran in the 1960s. He description was detailed but no way as detailed as Hutch. The difference being is that Fouke was an experience police officer (Hutch is not. He's a Victorian labourer), it was a well lit area with modern lighting (compared to the dark Millers court/commercial road) and his patrol car headlamps were on. Fouke was on the look out of a suspect as Paul Stein's murder had been recently committed in that area. I have run Hutch's suspect description past a few friends who are serving police officers. Their responses were "this is absolute BS", "i've been working homicide for 4 years and usually when we hear stuff like that it sends up a big red flag"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DJA View Post
                          Originally posted by seanr View Post

                          A quick Google seems to reveal 'American cloth' as a term used in the nineteenth century for oilcloth (linen cloth with a layer of boiled linseed oil). Something which makes me think of my grandmother's table cloth.

                          https://www.lexico.com/definition/american_cloth

                          Thanks for that.

                          I recognise what it is now. It's the sort of thing you get on cafe tables. It's makes it all the more interesting a detail. A practical waterproof material to transport, say, bloody organs. Is Hutchinson pointing in that direction? Oilcloth is certainly different from newspaper both materially and visually.

                          But separate from that, in the same newspaper article, Hutchinson describes the man he saw as looking like a foreigner. In his police statement he says he heard the man speak. In neither the article or the statement does he say anything about an accent, which he surely would've picked up on as he says he heard the man talk to Mary Kelly. Given all the details he puts forward that one seems like a glaring omission.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            hey wick
                            ive often wondered why they didnt use PC smith as a witness later on. any thoughts on this?
                            Absolutely, my thoughts exactly.
                            In my mind it's one of the biggest questions of the case.

                            In fact, I do think it was PC Smith whom Macnaghten meant when he wrote about the only witness who saw the killer, "was the City PC in Mitre Square".
                            He misremember Berner st. for Mitre Sq.

                            Of course, if this is the case then the man with the parcel was the killer, which has been my belief all along.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seanr View Post

                              A quick Google seems to reveal 'American cloth' as a term used in the nineteenth century for oilcloth (linen cloth with a layer of boiled linseed oil). Something which makes me think of my grandmother's table cloth.

                              https://www.lexico.com/definition/american_cloth
                              They still sell it today. Back in the 70's it was motorcycle gear in the UK. Today it's called Waxed Cotton.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X