Hutch evidence

[Curious Cat]

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?

[Sunny Delight]

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Very well summed up there Jon.

[c.d.]

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.

[TheTypeWriter]

[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".

[TheTypeWriter]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[MrTwibbs]

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