A closer look at George Hutchinson

[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.

[Fiver]

PS. In telling us that Leander pointed out that there were differences, it seems you forgot to tell us that he also pointed out that the two signatures were similar enough to produce a hit on the scale of similarities. He also added that the fact that he only had one signature from the witness, meant that he was unable to grade it any higher.

Maybe you should mention that too, so as not to get things very wrong?

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."

[Fisherman]

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

Well, it would boil down the assortment of possible witnesses to just the one (1) candidate, and so it would facilitate a lot to look in the correct places for information afterwards.

On the other hand, it would not mean that Hutchinson could not have been Jack the Ripper.

But once we have the identity, we can try and see if we can rule Topping out as the killer.

So that is about it, I think.

[Fisherman]

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Leander said that they had not had an opportunity directly examine the signatures and that there was not enough evidence to come to a proper conclusion.

The expert clearly told you there was insufficient data.

This has been gone over many times now. We ALL know that there was not enough data to produce a legally binding verdict.

Then again, it was not as if Leander was only handed the ”G” in George. He got the two signatures, and he said that they were likely to be a match, GOING ON WHAT HE HAD. He compared what there was to compare.

And that is perfectly enough for me, because when a renowned forensic document examiner says that yes, the signatures are similar enough to suggest a common originator (suggest, not conclude), what we have is two signatures that are similar in handwriting style AND name. And that is extremely powerful evidence of a common originator.

Surely, that cannot be hard to follow?