A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Filby]

In my honest opinion and analysis i still think hutch is most likely to be jack the ripper:

1. he was there with mary kelly near time of death.
2. he engaged in stalking behavior.
3. he lied and made up a ridiculous suspect in aman.
4. he waited until the inquest was over to conveniently come forward.
5. his presence lurking was corroborated by sarah lewis
6. he has no alibi at probable time of death, and indeed by his own account , was walking about.
7. he accused a jew. the gsg incriminated a jew.
8. he fits general profile to a t.
9. was staying at the victoria house. a stones throw from dorset street and in tje heart of ripper territory.
10. fits the general witness descriptions
11. unlike bury, druitt and others the mackenzie murder dosnt rule him out.
12. only ripper suspect that was both a "witness" with an actual physical connection to the case and a police person of interst.
13. Changed story from police deposition to press story now saying he stood outside her window indicating he knew not only where she exactly lived but placing himself even closer to her place of death.

According to witnesses, Four men were seen to be in mary kellys presense the night of her murder. so one of them is most likely to be her killer and therefore jack the ripper.

Joe Barnett
Blotchy
George Hutchinson
Astrakan man

Joe Barnett has an alibi and was cleared by police.
Blotchy was seen earlier with the victim than the usual time of ripper murders and hutches account exonerates him.
Aman is more than likely a de facto false suspect.
George hurchinson was the last credible person seen with mary kelly. he places himself in her company around tod, engaged in stalking behavior and has zero alibi. IMHO George Hutchinson is most likely to be Mary Kellys killer and therefor Jack the Ripper.

Hi Abby;

I've never been comfortable with the MJK/Hutch/AK scenario either. But Hutch's story seems too elaborate and detailed for a lie. One thing that has always stood out in my mind; is that the striking level of casualness and sense of familiarity (in my view) and relaxation between MJK and AK Man upon their first meeting as described by Hutch's testimony: AK Man said something and MJK burst out laughing and they both turned and walk back toward the Court. Without refuting any facts than we do know, I'm positing that MJK was a more "elite" prostitute based on her age and attractiveness and that AK Man was a pre-appointment set up by MJK's "Landlord" which would explain the more polished dress code by AK man that stood out like a sore thumb. If Hutch was trying to blame someone, it would be in his best interest for that someone not to be recognized, caught and mix as a regular into Whitechapel.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby;

I've never been comfortable with the MJK/Hutch/AK scenario either. But Hutch's story seems too elaborate and detailed for a lie.....

Most lie's, especially at a first telling, are vague and lack detail.
On a second or third telling, the details sometimes change. A person must have a good memory, to be a good liar.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Abby;

I've never been comfortable with the MJK/Hutch/AK scenario either. But Hutch's story seems too elaborate and detailed for a lie.

I just thought Id mention that the inverse of your preliminary conclusion is likely more accurate, it does indeed seem too elaborate and detailed to have not been at the every least embellished, if not an outright fabrication. As I mentioned before, the fact that we know of someone that moved in around the corner into Little Paternoster Row a few days before the murder then left abruptly the night of the murder, whose description is undeniably very similar to Hutch's Astrakhan Man, might lend credence to a suggestion that this report was intended to point to that same man. And intended to downplay any notion that Wideawake Hat Man was perhaps an accomplice. Hutchs story suggests it was simply one "friend" looking out for another. It would seem the Pardon for Accomplices offer, up until that time never really seriously considered a viable way to obtain information, must have been due to that loitering man seen by Sarah. There is nothing in the murder itself that indicates 2 men or more were likely involved.

I used the word intended above a few times, because I dont believe his intentions coming in Monday night, 4 days later, and after the Inquest had adjourned, were to provide the police with an important lead. Had that been the truth, he would have surfaced later Friday or Saturday knowing that as valuable time ticks away the value of his story diminishes.

4.....days....later.....

[Wickerman]

...

I used the word intended above a few times, because I dont believe his intentions coming in Monday night, 4 days later, and after the Inquest had adjourned, were to provide the police with an important lead. Had that been the truth, he would have surfaced later Friday or Saturday knowing that as valuable time ticks away the value of his story diminishes.

4.....days....later.....

Michael.
When a murder takes place on a Friday, "one day later" is Saturday.
"Two days later" is Sunday, "three days later" is Monday.
Monday, is when Hutchinson came forward.
Three days later.

On Friday the only stories in the evening press concerning Kelly's time of death suggested she was murdered after 9:00 am. We have the same situation on Saturday, the only new detail was the claim by Kennedy that she heard a cry of murder after 3:00 am, not an uncommon occurrence in Whitechapel.

The public only believed Kelly had been murdered after 9:00 am, therefore Hutchinson must have believed the same.
If she was murdered after 9:00 am then that was about 6-7 hours after Hutchinson met her in the street.
What was Chapman doing 6-7 hrs before her murder?
What were Stride, Eddowes, even Nichols doing 6-7 hrs before they were murdered?
What relevance was it to their individual murders? - nothing.

This is the true reason Hutchinson didn't bother to come forward, his meeting with Kelly was not relevant to her death so late in the morning.

It only became evident on Sunday, as reported in Lloyds Weekly that the authorities believed Kelly was murdered earlier, about 3:00 am.
This was the day Hutch said he went to a constable and told him his story, we don't know what the constable said. But, after discussing his story with friends at the lodging-house, they convinced him to go to the police station.

No mystery here.

[Sunny Delight]

In my honest opinion and analysis i still think hutch is most likely to be jack the ripper:

1. he was there with mary kelly near time of death.
2. he engaged in stalking behavior.
3. he lied and made up a ridiculous suspect in aman.
4. he waited until the inquest was over to conveniently come forward.
5. his presence lurking was corroborated by sarah lewis
6. he has no alibi at probable time of death, and indeed by his own account , was walking about.
7. he accused a jew. the gsg incriminated a jew.
8. he fits general profile to a t.
9. was staying at the victoria house. a stones throw from dorset street and in tje heart of ripper territory.
10. fits the general witness descriptions
11. unlike bury, druitt and others the mackenzie murder dosnt rule him out.
12. only ripper suspect that was both a "witness" with an actual physical connection to the case and a police person of interst.
13. Changed story from police deposition to press story now saying he stood outside her window indicating he knew not only where she exactly lived but placing himself even closer to her place of death.

According to witnesses, Four men were seen to be in mary kellys presense the night of her murder. so one of them is most likely to be her killer and therefore jack the ripper.

Joe Barnett
Blotchy
George Hutchinson
Astrakan man

Joe Barnett has an alibi and was cleared by police.
Blotchy was seen earlier with the victim than the usual time of ripper murders and hutches account exonerates him.
Aman is more than likely a de facto false suspect.
George hurchinson was the last credible person seen with mary kelly. he places himself in her company around tod, engaged in stalking behavior and has zero alibi. IMHO George Hutchinson is most likely to be Mary Kellys killer and therefor Jack the Ripper.

1) We don't know the exact time of death and 'with' Mary Kelly is disingenuous language as well.

2) Stalking is a form of harassment, but the stalker will have an obsession with the person they're targeting and their repeated, unwanted behaviour can make the victim feel distressed or scared. Doesn't seem to fit what we know.

3) No, you believe he lied and made up Aman. That is not a fact as you have portrayed with your language. Many believe Aman existed.

4) It may have been convenient- that doesn't necessarily make it suspicious. His explanation for coming forward appears on my reading to be quite understandable. He needed an extra push which he got from a friend.

5) Lurking is a better description than stalking. He was where he said he was when he said he was. If anything Lewis co-orborates him making his story more likely to be true.

6) Indeed. No alibi that could be co-orborated. It wasn't that he didn't have one.

7) He accused a foreign looking suspect with a Jewish appearance but the graffito only incriminated a Jew if you think it was connected to the case. Many don't. It can't be proved either way.

8) Does he? We dont even know who he was and can't find him on censuses. So how can he fit the profile?

9) So were hundreds of other men.

10) Again apart from knowing he was stout what else do we know about his appearance.

11) He could have been dead in 1889 for all we know because we don't know who he was.

12) Was he a person of interest? Surely Abberline believing his testimony exonerated him.

13) The similarities far outweigh the differences in those testimonies. In fact it is remarkably similar adding substance to the liklihood his testimony was true.

Not one of the points made amount to anything at all and for me it's like Charles Cross where there is nothing to go on. Poor stuff really.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive responded in your quote Jon...

Michael.
When a murder takes place on a Friday, "one day later" is Saturday.
"Two days later" is Sunday, "three days later" is Monday.
Monday, is when Hutchinson came forward.
Three days later.

Im often surprised at the things I am expected to respond to Jon......all day Friday, all Day Saturday, all Day Sunday and until Monday night is easily considered 4 days. And you argue with me like 3 days is somehow more acceptable. It isnt, not for a friend.

On Friday the only stories in the evening press concerning Kelly's time of death suggested she was murdered after 9:00 am. We have the same situation on Saturday, the only new detail was the claim by Kennedy that she heard a cry of murder after 3:00 am, not an uncommon occurrence in Whitechapel.

So your belief is that Hutchinson could not have learned of Marys fate on Friday?I can find a few papers that printed articles on the murder on NOV 9th, and the fact that they were published in the evening means that any people reporters found that offered some information did so...during the day. Or is it that you believe they were first giving their statements by the presses as they printed the evening news? You are aware Barnetts brother lived where Hutchinson did...think Daniel heard about it Friday?

The public only believed Kelly had been murdered after 9:00 am, therefore Hutchinson must have believed the same.
They did no such thing, the articles said that she was discovered that morning...and by the state she was in it was obvious that she had been killed sometime during the night.

If she was murdered after 9:00 am then that was about 6-7 hours after Hutchinson met her in the street.
No problem, as she definitely was not murdered after 9am. Plenty of facts suggest a killing in the dark hours of the night.

This is the true reason Hutchinson didn't bother to come forward, his meeting with Kelly was not relevant to her death so late in the morning.
The discovery of her death Jon was in the morning, you just keep repeating incorrect material.

It only became evident on Sunday, as reported in Lloyds Weekly that the authorities believed Kelly was murdered earlier, about 3:00 am.
Bond guessed as much on Saturday.

This was the day Hutch said he went to a constable and told him his story, we don't know what the constable said. But, after discussing his story with friends at the lodging-house, they convinced him to go to the police station.
All of that, as well as everything that Hutchinson said, was just his own story, not a verified record of what happened.

No mystery here.
Sure there is........The mystery here is why you continue to hold on to things that are very obviously erroneous misrepresentations.

Hutchinson had his story discredited....yes Jon, it was printed in a contemporary reporting piece that same week whether you accept it as accurate or not. And using the personal belief and reflections of some investigators to counter that statement and suggest his story was actually viable later on, does not in any way negate that a story like that appeared. That same week.

I realize that someone who believes 1 woman in this story is actually 2 separate women, referred to by 2 different names in the press despite the stories being essentially the same with all the same details within, might object to being reminded of the difference between facts and suppositions.

[Michael W Richards]

12) Was he a person of interest? Surely Abberline believing his testimony exonerated him.

The Star, NOV 15TH:

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.

As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

Abberline is among the investigators who had many opinions....."the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903 Abberline put forward the idea that George Chapman may have been the Ripper saying "...I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago."...and, ..."Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."

Then he says this..."...Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it."

And...."I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up."

Why is it you and others seem to hold Abberline in such high regard, clearly by the above, he is either intentionally misleading or he has an opinion that changes with his change of socks.

[c.d.]

"Another story now discredited...

Who discredited his story? How did they arrive at that conclusion?

You discredit Abberline as a bumbling oaf but treat a newspaper article as the Word of God. I think you have it backwards.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

...

Im often surprised at the things I am expected to respond to Jon......all day Friday, all Day Saturday, all Day Sunday and until Monday night is easily considered 4 days. And you argue with me like 3 days is somehow more acceptable.

"Later" Michael, "three days later" - this discounts Friday, three days "later", is Sat. Sun. Mon. = 3 days later.

It's just basic English Michael.
If Hutch had come forward on Friday, it wasn't a day later, was it. It was the same day.

So your belief is that Hutchinson could not have learned of Marys fate on Friday?I can find a few papers that printed articles on the murder on NOV 9th, and the fact that they were published in the evening means that any people reporters found that offered some information did so...during the day...

I've been through them all Michael.
There is nothing on Friday or Saturday to suggest Kelly was killed about 3:00 am - all we have in the Friday papers is Morris Lewis's tale about him seeing her between 8-9 am.
We then read Maxwell's account on Saturday, also suggesting Kelly was killed after 9:00 am.

The public only believed Kelly had been murdered after 9:00 am, therefore Hutchinson must have believed the same.
They did no such thing, the articles said that she was discovered that morning...and by the state she was in it was obvious that she had been killed sometime during the night.

Of course she was discovered that morning, that has nothing to do with an estimated time of death.
If you think you know of an article from Friday or Saturday where the police think she was killed before 9:00 am, please post it.

No problem, as she definitely was not murdered after 9am. Plenty of facts suggest a killing in the dark hours of the night.

The authorities didn't have any facts pointing to a time of death before the results of the post mortem, on Sunday.
I've been through every London daily & evening paper, you can't bluff me

The discovery of her death Jon was in the morning, you just keep repeating incorrect material.

Yes, it was in the late morning, and people swore they saw her alive at, or before 9:00 am - have you forgotten?

Bond guessed as much on Saturday.

Are you suggesting Dr Bond & Hutchinson were best mates?
Dr. Bonds notes were an estimate for Anderson, not for public knowledge. Hutchinson didn't know Kelly had been murdered so early in the morning. All he knew was that two people claimed to have seen her alive & well until after 9:00 am, so he knew by their statements that his friend Kelly must have been alive at the late hour. Which means the man he saw her with at about 2:30 am, couldn't have been her murderer. This was 6-7 hours before Maxwell last saw Kelly.

The mystery here is why you continue to hold on to things that are very obviously erroneous misrepresentations.

I have quotes for everything I have told you, unlike yourself.
You are ignoring factual information Michael, you're off on some tangent to goodness knows where.....

You are building a theory based on conjecture & a misunderstanding of the evidence.

[c.d.]

I think the biggest question surrounding Hutchinson is could he have been the Ripper or somehow involved in Kelly's murder? A bigger question than even the veracity of his story. My feeling is that unless the police were absolute total idiots and hopelessly incompetent he would have been viewed as a person of interest big time. Admitted to knowing the victim and was with her shortly before she died. Big time red flags. Since he apparently faded into history shortly after I have to conclude that the police were confident he was not their man. Does that mean he could not have been the Ripper? No, but that is about as good as we are going to get.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

The Star, NOV 15TH:

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.

As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

Abberline is among the investigators who had many opinions....."the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903 Abberline put forward the idea that George Chapman may have been the Ripper saying "...I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago."...and, ..."Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."

Then he says this..."...Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it."

And...."I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up."

Why is it you and others seem to hold Abberline in such high regard, clearly by the above, he is either intentionally misleading or he has an opinion that changes with his change of socks.

It is actually your own bias on show here. I am suggesting that as Abberline believed Hutchinson and went as far as sending Detectives around the neighbourhood with him to identify Aman, the Police did not view him as a person of interest. Do I put 100% faith in that? Well that is a separate question. I do value Abberline's opinion quite highly- he looked in Hutchinson's eyes and in his own words interrogated him for 3 hours. But Abberline was a human being and human beings can be wrong and make mistakes.

The point stands though that Hutchinson was not a person of interest at the time but rather appearing to actually be a valuable witness instead.

[Sunny Delight]

I think the biggest question surrounding Hutchinson is could he have been the Ripper or somehow involved in Kelly's murder? A bigger question than even the veracity of his story. My feeling is that unless the police were absolute total idiots and hopelessly incompetent he would have been viewed as a person of interest big time. Admitted to knowing the victim and was with her shortly before she died. Big time red flags. Since he apparently faded into history shortly after I have to conclude that the police were confident he was not their man. Does that mean he could not have been the Ripper? No, but that is about as good as we are going to get.

c.d.

I think a lot of value is placed on his loitering and following Kelly back to her flat. It was certainly weird behaviour- difficult to explain. Human nature doesn't change and if someone was to that in this day and age serious questions would be asked. For all we know Hutchinson was a real weirdo but being a real weirdo doesn't make someone a murderer who enjoys mutilating women.

[c.d.]

The point stands though that Hutchinson was not a person of interest at the time but rather appearing to actually be a valuable witness instead.

I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

I agree with Abby that Hutch doesn't have an alibi. There's no such thing as an uncorroborated alibi. If it can't be proven to be true, it's not an alibi.

Where I disagree with Abby is that if you're going to claim that Hutch's story is false, then you can't use Hutch's story to exonerate Blotchy.

On Abberline and Hutch, I think it's possible that Abberline didn't know whether to believe Hutch or not. So since he thought it was possible that what Hutch was saying was true, he looked for the man that Hutch described because he wanted to follow every possible lead, even if the lead wasn't an especially strong one.

[c.d.]

On Abberline and Hutch, I think it's possible that Abberline didn't know whether to believe Hutch or not. So since he thought it was possible that what Hutch was saying was true, he looked for the man that Hutch described because he wanted to follow every possible lead, even if the lead wasn't an especially strong one.


Agree. Belief can cover a spectrum. And even if it appears that Abberline "believed" his story we don't know if he simply believed it was more likely to be true than not or if he believed it to be true to such an extent that he would be willing to wager the souls of his wife and children on it. We don't know where he fell on that spectrum.

We also don't know whether he wavered from his initial belief as time passed.

c.d.