A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, he seems to be saying he had been a customer of hers several times, while not suggesting a close friendship.

Thats not what is neccesarily indicated by saying that he knew her very well, having been in her company several times, and he occasionally gave her some money. I understand that some feel the need to apply some kind of a Street Prostitute filter to any information provided about someone we know did solicit on the street, but these are humans, not mechanical whores. They have stories, they have friendships, and some even have relationships with non-paying men. And some went out for fun. Some didnt work some nights.. by choice. And only Mary, among all these Unsolved murder cases, was a woman who had a rented room in her name.

With Mary, people like to imagine she entertained clients in that room...despite the fact that Joe was living there until Tuesday and didnt want her out on the street and there is no evidence she brought any man other than Joe to that room before Blotchy........and some would like to imagine she felt compelled to work the streets after already arriving home very inebriated hours earlier....despite the fact that we know she hadnt been working regularly and was in arrears almost 3 weeks of rent. Its the same with Stride, she is described as being dressed in good evening wear, with a fresh flower on her bosom and mints to freshen her breath...yet some would like to imagine thats how she normally decked out to work the streets....despite the fact that no-one sees her soliciting, and she had already earned her doss before ever leaving her lodgings. And she was sober...so imagining she was an alcoholic and solicited to feed that habit, like perhaps Polly did, isnt supported by known evidence.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I agree completely with your overall assessment but feel I should add that Hutchinson to the press stated: “I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.”

So still not “friend” but a bit more info than what Abberline wrote.

Yes, he seems to be saying he had been a customer of hers several times, while not suggesting a close friendship.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Wickerman

I agree completely with your overall assessment but feel I should add that Hutchinson to the press stated: “I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.”

So still not “friend” but a bit more info than what Abberline wrote.

Obviously I appreciate you pointing that out. At times I just casually refer to things assuming that everyone is on the same page in terms of in depth knowledge of these cases. The suggestion of a casual friendship with Mary Kelly is also present in Mrs Maxwells statement, having Mary refer to her by a nickname or stylized version of her given name.

Its an interesting element that you can find in a few recorded cases, witness with reasonably important information who offer no tangible evidence they even knew the victim in passing. Mrs Maxwell, by the little we know of her, would be more likely to sneer out her window through parted drapes about street walking girls than befriend one.

[Michael W Richards]

He may have offered an explanation for not coming forward to Abberline, we don't have Abberlines interrogation notes to prove it either way. You do have a tendency to make claims that can't be proven and present them as fact. As I said in my previous post- Hutchinson had to physically go to a Police station and give his information. That is not easy to do. In the UK we nowadays have a service called crimestoppers where you report crimes or offer potential leads anonymously. Why would that service be offered if even now people are reticent to go to the Police station and give information.

You state 4 days is enough to erase value of his sighting yet just this week where I live the Police asked for information about a crime that happened 35 years ago. They even did a reconstruction to help jog memories if someone happened to come forward. And here you are dismissing evidence 4 days old. Thank the Lord you aren't a Police officer.

Hutchinson never once referred to Kelly as a 'friend'. He stated he knew her well and occassionaly gave her a few shillings. What exactly he meant by that we dont know.

Lastly, for me anyways I can imagine Hutchinson reading or hearing about Kelly's death over that weekend. He obviously knew by Sunday as he claimed he offered information to a fixed point Police officer that day. When he tells Abberline that it was after speaking with a friend he decided to come forward it feels authentic. One can imagine going through such turmoil in ones head. Then confiding in a friend what had happened- the friend encouraging or maybe even insisting you must go to the Police. An extra push that you need. That feels real to me because I could imagine that happening to myself. I wouldn't be the most forward person and can be introverted. Maybe Hutchinson was the same. Who knows.

Im simply pointing out Sunny that with the Police Investigation technologies available in 1888 to catch a criminal, 4 days is enough to have the suspect literally almost anywhere in the world. In pragmatic terms, a detailed and certainly embellished description of the suspect as was provided is essentially useless 4 days after the fact. When you reference modern investigations and a 35 year old crime, thats part of the technology evolution of criminal detection. For example we can test DNA. Makes anyone traceable really.

What caused me to look hard at Hutchinson were 2 aspects of his story that seem to me couldnt be debated,.... that he knew and spoke with Mary occasionally and the minutia level details of Mr A. No-one could identify him or confirm they were aware Mary ever knew him...the Inquest had just ended. Anyone who knew Mary or lived there was gone. And the details of Mr A are for me the clincher. In the middle of the night, on a dark street, from a slight distance...re-read it for yourself. It strains credulity. But interestingly it does bear remarkable similarity to someone named "Joe"......(recall Mary was seeing 2 Joes?)..who a few days earlier had moved into a dwelling right around the corner from Mary and then disappeared from his lodgings the night she is killed. Leaving personal belongings behind.

Based on the above Ive said that I believe its quite likely Hutchinson came in because he, or someone, wanted to deflect any suspicions about Wideawake Hat man. Who in my opinion was the catalyst for the department to finally offer a Pardon for information by an Accomplice. In effect Hutchinson caused them to be less concerned about what happened with Blotchy Face as well. The likely threat then was Astrakan Man for a bit.

I believe the template for Hutchinsons description is possibly a local jewish man Joseph Issacs, an Astrakan trim wearing chap from around the area. And it isnt lost on me that in the Stride investigation, there is some question as to who the "Issacs" was that Louis refers to leaving for help with. Because Issac Zozebrodski is interviewed that night and said he was "sent" out BY Louis or some other member. Just a little synchronicity I like finding in these cases. Cause Ya never know.

[Sunny Delight]

That isnt credible if... as he said she was his friend for some time before then, and that he didnt have something which prevented him from coming in right away. Are you aware of anything inhibiting George from coming forward immediately upon learning of his "friend" being butchered a few hours after he says he spoke with her? Me neither, nor did he offer any reason to Abberline for the delay.

You can accept a premise that George wanted to help but cant accept that waiting 4 days effectively erases any value his "sighting" might have had. Interesting.

He may have offered an explanation for not coming forward to Abberline, we don't have Abberlines interrogation notes to prove it either way. You do have a tendency to make claims that can't be proven and present them as fact. As I said in my previous post- Hutchinson had to physically go to a Police station and give his information. That is not easy to do. In the UK we nowadays have a service called crimestoppers where you report crimes or offer potential leads anonymously. Why would that service be offered if even now people are reticent to go to the Police station and give information.

You state 4 days is enough to erase value of his sighting yet just this week where I live the Police asked for information about a crime that happened 35 years ago. They even did a reconstruction to help jog memories if someone happened to come forward. And here you are dismissing evidence 4 days old. Thank the Lord you aren't a Police officer.

Hutchinson never once referred to Kelly as a 'friend'. He stated he knew her well and occassionaly gave her a few shillings. What exactly he meant by that we dont know.

Lastly, for me anyways I can imagine Hutchinson reading or hearing about Kelly's death over that weekend. He obviously knew by Sunday as he claimed he offered information to a fixed point Police officer that day. When he tells Abberline that it was after speaking with a friend he decided to come forward it feels authentic. One can imagine going through such turmoil in ones head. Then confiding in a friend what had happened- the friend encouraging or maybe even insisting you must go to the Police. An extra push that you need. That feels real to me because I could imagine that happening to myself. I wouldn't be the most forward person and can be introverted. Maybe Hutchinson was the same. Who knows.

[Kattrup]

Michael, you make these things up in your head, then create arguments to justify what you invent.
Hutchinson never once claimed Mary was a "friend".
He never refers to her as Mary, not once.
You have invented this close relationship, then try your best to shoot it down. That's what is called a "straw-man argument".

All that was said, and that was by Abberline, is Hutch occasionally gave her a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years.

But you misrepresent those words to try make George & Mary best pals, as if he should go running to police the minute he heard she was murdered.
Your argument is a complete fabrication.

Hi Wickerman

I agree completely with your overall assessment but feel I should add that Hutchinson to the press stated: “I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.”

So still not “friend” but a bit more info than what Abberline wrote.

[Wickerman]

That isnt credible if... as he said she was his friend for some time before then,..

Michael, you make these things up in your head, then create arguments to justify what you invent.
Hutchinson never once claimed Mary was a "friend".
He never refers to her as Mary, not once.
You have invented this close relationship, then try your best to shoot it down. That's what is called a "straw-man argument".

All that was said, and that was by Abberline, is Hutch occasionally gave her a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years.

But you misrepresent those words to try make George & Mary best pals, as if he should go running to police the minute he heard she was murdered.
Your argument is a complete fabrication.

[Michael W Richards]

For those that don't know, this is a reference to Nigel Morland.

Hi Michael,

What would say to people who think that Morland wasn't the most trustworthy of people?


The Passing Tramp: The Many Mysteries of Mr. Morland: Was He Really Edgar Wallace's Secretary, Did He Really Know Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Did He Really Sit on Dr. Crippen's Knee--and What about that Business Concerning Jack the Ripper?

Id say rj, (without knowing much about him beyond an essay by Peter Underwood which is on here, "Jack the Ripper and ME", which mentions Morlands "information" confirmed by a Dr Stowell), that I am reticent about extending complete trust to anyone who has an "opinion" that the cases were solved and it was just covered up.

Just the facts m'am. Thats all, just give me the facts. An opinion and 5$ can get me a Starbucks Cap...but I can get the Cap without the opinion.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry you have lost me completely. Once again rather than tie yourself in knots with a convoluted and confusing narrative- maybe, just maybe Hutchinson came forward because he had information that he felt might be useful.

That isnt credible if... as he said she was his friend for some time before then, and that he didnt have something which prevented him from coming in right away. Are you aware of anything inhibiting George from coming forward immediately upon learning of his "friend" being butchered a few hours after he says he spoke with her? Me neither, nor did he offer any reason to Abberline for the delay.

You can accept a premise that George wanted to help but cant accept that waiting 4 days effectively erases any value his "sighting" might have had. Interesting.

[rjpalmer]

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."

For those that don't know, this is a reference to Nigel Morland.

Hi Michael,

What would say to people who think that Morland wasn't the most trustworthy of people?


The Passing Tramp: The Many Mysteries of Mr. Morland: Was He Really Edgar Wallace's Secretary, Did He Really Know Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Did He Really Sit on Dr. Crippen's Knee--and What about that Business Concerning Jack the Ripper?

[Sunny Delight]

"Wideawake Man was obviously a key person of interest once Sarah Lewis described him loitering outside Millers Court at 2am." As a potential Accomplice, apparently so.....hence the Pardon offer.

Heres another point it seems you didnt factor in......Sarahs story was known over the weekend, so why then would Hutchinson come in and place himself there at that time, risking being seen as that loitering possible accomplice? Gee....maybe it was to take Wideawakes place, and suddenly that possible accomplice is a "friend" of Marys just looking out for her. Albeit, creepily.

Hutchinson misdirected the investigation and negated looking for the possible accomplice, Wideawake Hat man. But only briefly.

Sorry you have lost me completely. Once again rather than tie yourself in knots with a convoluted and confusing narrative- maybe, just maybe Hutchinson came forward because he had information that he felt might be useful.

[Sunny Delight]

I really dont care that you dont agree Sunny, correct. You didnt even distinguish between the various types of witnesses before proclaiming 4 days is a "quick turnaround". By all accounts there is nothing that would or should prevent George from coming in as soon as possible after hearing of the murder.

Since you seem to skip by any conventional thinking, what reasons do you imagine George Hutchinson would have to delay 4 days before coming forward with an eyewitness account of someone he calls a "friend" who he saw in the company of a man who by all intent and purposes would then likely have been her killer? You know that old thing....last person seen with the victim? Fear? Of whom? What changed on Monday to set his alleged fears aside? Fear of public speaking....I guess thats why he skipped the Inquest then.

Any salient person would know that a suspect sighting with the deceased would be very important to the authorities investigation. So, did he just not like cops then? Or did he figure he would give old A man fair head start out of the country?

It would be prudent to remember that George himself sought to establish a supposed friendship with the deceased, and he didnt have to come in at all if he wasnt her friend.

I think any right minded person recognises that getting witnesses to come forward is challenging- even nowadays. There is always a certain apprehension of going to the Police with information- add in the fact that the MET were not the most trusted of forces in 1888 and I think it is fairly obvious why Hutchinson was reticent to run straight for the nearest Police station. One must take into account that it wasn't like he could just pick up the telephone and call crimestoppers anonymously. Why would people call anonymously to report information anyways. Maybe they are afraid of public speaking too.

It really is pretty obvious although you appear to tie yourself in knots.

[Michael W Richards]

Which only demonstrates how easy it is to create fiction when you select your own evidence.

Which is it that you object to Jon.....the fact that I pointed out that Hutchinsons suspect re-directed the attention that should have been given to Blotchy, the actual last person seen with Mary,.... or is it that old nagging issue about why Abberline saying he believed Hutchinson weeks later in a memo...(as he did for Israel, another winner witness), means essentially nothing when its reported by Nov 15th that Hutch was discredited?

Im shocked how much what Abberline states seems to carry more weight than contradictory reports about his "witnesses". He said no-one knew who the Ripper was, that only certain high ranking officials knew the truth, and a serial poisoner without any evidence linking him to any murders other than the 2 he poisoned and was being executed for, seemed to him to be the Ripper 15 years after the fact. The facts apparently "dovetailed" for him.

Abberlines credibility is not accepted without question....unless of course you want to use what he claimed regardless.

[Wickerman]

Which only demonstrates how easy it is to create fiction when you select your own evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Wideawake Man was obviously a key person of interest once Sarah Lewis described him loitering outside Millers Court at 2am in the morning. Hutchinson for all intents and purposes appears to have been exonerated by Abberline as he said he believed his information was important. Nothing we have seems to suggest Hutchinson subsequently became of interest again at a later date.

"Wideawake Man was obviously a key person of interest once Sarah Lewis described him loitering outside Millers Court at 2am." As a potential Accomplice, apparently so.....hence the Pardon offer.

Heres another point it seems you didnt factor in......Sarahs story was known over the weekend, so why then would Hutchinson come in and place himself there at that time, risking being seen as that loitering possible accomplice? Gee....maybe it was to take Wideawakes place, and suddenly that possible accomplice is a "friend" of Marys just looking out for her. Albeit, creepily.

Hutchinson misdirected the investigation and negated looking for the possible accomplice, Wideawake Hat man. But only briefly.