A closer look at George Hutchinson

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Abby Normal]

And what about Toppy=Hutch=Schwartz???

uh ..no

[Scott Nelson]

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

And what about Toppy=Hutch=Schwartz???

[Michael W Richards]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

Hi Sam,....or someone who for a few bucks was willing to come in and claim the identity of Wideawake Hat man to re-categorize him as a friend of Mary's just looking out for her...rather than the suspicious loitering man watching the courtyard who was probably the catalyst for the first time offer of a Pardon for Accomplices.

The kicker for me on Hutch is the, considering his claim that he was on friendly terms with Mary, the unexplained 4 day delay in reporting his "experience". The delay, the Romford story which is sketchy. The fact we have no proof he knew Mary at all. Too many red flags. But he did have impact on the investigation, Blotchy might have been seen a few days later but police were at that point disinclined to look beyond the toff sighting. That is until they were disinclined to use Hutchinsons story any longer.

[Fiver]

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too, but I fear that many of those who became less keen on Hutchinson as the killer actually weighed the matter in as a surefire sign of innocence. Somewehere in all of this, a great irony lurks.

Sam did not say that living a happy family life meant that Toppy Hutchinson could not have been the Ripper.

[Sam Flynn]

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too

Agreed, and said as much in that selfsame post ("Neither precludes the possibility [that he was a serial killer]"), but let's not get into that much wider topic here.

[Fisherman]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too, but I fear that many of those who became less keen on Hutchinson as the killer actually weighed the matter in as a surefire sign of innocence. Somewehere in all of this, a great irony lurks.

[Abby Normal]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

ok got it thanks sam

[Sam Flynn]

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

[Fisherman]

That is an inaccurate summary of what I said, as anyone who reads Post #88 can see.

"Summing up, Leander repeatedly says that they do not have enough material to determine if the two men are the same. Some aspects of the signatures match, enough that the same man could have written all of them, but there are also significant differences."

Then maybe it is a case of me not putting much confidence in what you say, Fiver?

As a matter of fact, my take on things is that you seem unable to take on board what this is all about.