A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

Here's an exception: Lechmere.

He killed poor Annie as close as possible to Corbet Court -- and as soon as possible -- so as to punish Robert Paul for interrupting his mutilation of Polly in Buck's Row and making public his presence so that he had to go to the police and the inquest.

The plan was to get the police on Paul's back, even if it was just for a short time. "You mess with me; I'll mess with you..."

But for that to happen, Annie's ToD had to be recognised as c.0350; i.e. as Robert Paul was still on his way to work. And it wasn't -- because of the bullshit testimony of some guy who spun a yarn about cutting leather off his boot at a place he couldn't be arsed to go to in order to perform a check that meant absolutely nothing but which his mad mum expected him to do.

As a result, a stupidly later ToD entered the record (and has been vigorously disputed by sensible researchers ever since.)

And Lechmere's plan didn't work. (I think Edward disagrees with me on this specific point. But you'll need to ask him about that.)

Now: who wants to tell me what the twice-thwarted Lechmere's now boiling narcissistic rage made him do next? Anyone? Yes, you: you at the back...

M.

I'm devastated that you cannot see the irony in that argument

[Fiver]

But if I was a psychopathic killer who had just made MJK my latest victim; and then the police and press can't even get the facts right, ergo, the time of death, then I would feel compelled to make sure that the facts of the crime were known, and thus would try and interject myself into the investigation as a supposed key witness, so that I could be close to it enough to enjoy it and see the reactions of everyone failing miserably.

There are killers who insert themselves into the investigation. If the Ripper was like that, I'd expect him to have done it long before the Kelly murder. I still think that virtually all serial killers would be ecstatic, not upset, that the police had accidentally given them alibi. If the Ripper was like that, then why didn't he try to clarify the time of Chapman's (and perhaps Tabram's) death?

[Fiver]

I definitely don't believe in an accomplice. Two killers? Nonsense.

There are examples of two killers - Burke and Hare, Bernardo and Holmolka, etc., so the idea shouldn't be automatically dismissed. That said, the Ripper appears to have narrowly escaped detection in the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes cases. It's a lot less likely that two men could have slipped away undetected than for a lone killer to have done so.

[Michael W Richards]

As the famous defense lawyers Johnny Cochrane might have said, "if the timings don't fit, you have to acquit."

Of course there is always the option of just estimating how wrong some witnesses were so that whatever you happen to be pitching the times work just fine. That method seems to be the instrument of choice for a lot of folks.

[rjpalmer]

In short, what you have is not Mark suggesting that Richardson told porkies, it is about how Mark suggests that Lechmere would have thought that he did, if he killed Chapman at an early hour.

I don't think so, Christer, and it's probably best to allow Mark to speak for himself.

The meaning of "at a place he couldn't be arsed to go to in order to perform a check that meant absolutely nothing but which his mad mum expected him to do" is abundantly clear isn't it?

This isn't the first time we've heard the suggestion that Richardson shirked his Saturday morning visit and "bulls---ed" his way through the inquest.

Meanwhile, the carman Thompson, also living at No. 29, poses an interesting puzzle for James Scobie, KC, and the "timings that really hurt" Crossmere.

Putting the testimonies of Davis and Mrs. Richardson together, we have Thompson being "called up" somewhere between 3.30 and 3.45 (he's on the second floor and Mrs. Richardson is down below) and leaving the house at around 3.50 (according to both The Times and The Daily Telegraph).

Although Thompson evidently didn't swing by the backyard to empty his bladder before heading out, his departure coincides rather narrowly with the time Lechmere was supposedly luring Mrs. Chapman into the backyard of Hanbury Street on his commute to work. And Mrs. Richardson had been awake since 3.00 a.m., and was listening to the movements in the house--enough that she was certain Thompson hadn't entered the backyard--yet this is also the time you having your commuter entering it.

I don't think Thompson's movements that morning (nor Mrs. Richardson's ears) would help James Scobie in his task to convince a jury of twelve that there is no reasonable doubt.

And this is without even considering the accounts of Richardson, Long, and Cadosche.

As the famous defense lawyers Johnny Cochrane might have said, "if the timings don't fit, you have to acquit."

P.S. I see now that discussing Lechmere has been suspended for the time being, Christer, so we'll have to take this up another day. See you around.

[Fisherman]

So, in your estimation, is it normal behavior for a man to unnecessarily place himself at the scene of a violent murder at which he was never present--with knife in hand, no less--just so he won't get a scolding from Dear Old Ma?

Recall that the Scotland Yard files indicate that the police investigated Richardson due to this admission. Your theory has Richardson playing a very dangerous game--with almost no upside.

Just a reflection here, R J. What I believe Mark is suggesting is that Lechmere killed Annie Chapman early in the morning to point a finger at Robert Paul, and then, when Richardson testified and said that as far as he was concerned, there was no woman in the back yard at 4.45, Lechmere was not happy about it at all, knowing, as he would have done, that Richardson was incorrect.

Therefore, it has nothing to do with what Mark himself thinks about Richardson unnecessarily placing himself at a spot where he never was - it is instead about the suggestion that Lechmere would have thought Richardson a bullshitter, provided that the assumption that Lechmere killed Chapman at an early remove in time in order to point a finger at Paul, is correct.

In short, what you have is not Mark suggesting that Richardson told porkies, it is about how Mark suggests that Lechmere would have thought that he did, if he killed Chapman at an early hour.

[rjpalmer]

And it wasn't -- because of the bullshit testimony of some guy who spun a yarn about cutting leather off his boot at a place he couldn't be arsed to go to in order to perform a check that meant absolutely nothing but which his mad mum expected him to do.

So, in your estimation, is it normal behavior for a man to unnecessarily place himself at the scene of a violent murder at which he was never present--with knife in hand, no less--just so he won't get a scolding from Dear Old Ma?

Recall that the Scotland Yard files indicate that the police investigated Richardson due to this admission. Your theory has Richardson playing a very dangerous game--with almost no upside.

But for that to happen, Annie's ToD had to be recognised as c.0350; i.e. as Robert Paul was still on his way to work.

Here is a possible spanner in your machinery.

There are two reports of a carman named Thompson, living at No. 29 over the previous two weeks, going to work at this earlier hour. One specifically claims 'Thompson left the house as early as 3.50 a.m.' on the morning of the murder. (The Times, 11 September, p. 6)

[Mark J D]

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood.

Here's an exception: Lechmere.

He killed poor Annie as close as possible to Corbet Court -- and as soon as possible -- so as to punish Robert Paul for interrupting his mutilation of Polly in Buck's Row and making public his presence so that he had to go to the police and the inquest.

The plan was to get the police on Paul's back, even if it was just for a short time. "You mess with me; I'll mess with you..."

But for that to happen, Annie's ToD had to be recognised as c.0350; i.e. as Robert Paul was still on his way to work. And it wasn't -- because of the bullshit testimony of some guy who spun a yarn about cutting leather off his boot at a place he couldn't be arsed to go to in order to perform a check that meant absolutely nothing but which his mad mum expected him to do.

As a result, a stupidly later ToD entered the record (and has been vigorously disputed by sensible researchers ever since.)

And Lechmere's plan didn't work. (I think Edward disagrees with me on this specific point. But you'll need to ask him about that.)

Now: who wants to tell me what the twice-thwarted Lechmere's now boiling narcissistic rage made him do next? Anyone? Yes, you: you at the back...

M.

[Michael W Richards]

Right, which suggests they do not mean someone playing an active role during the commission of the crime. As would be the case of someone suggested to be on lookout.


Once again you are avoiding the facts of the case.
Sarah Lewis told the court she did not know Mary Kelly by sight, as she was merely a visitor, not a resident.


The only man seen by Bowyer at 3:00 am would be Astrachan, Hutchinson may have been in the court earlier, and the Britannia-man shortly after. So, Astrachan is the only one who could have been there on present knowledge.

What do you think Aiding and/or Abetting means? It means working in tandem, hence, accomplice. Not sure why you would imagine they would just arbitrarily choose to reverse what had been the policy since the first Ripper kill, when its abundantly clear that they had a witness see someone hanging around that court entrance. The best possible spot for a lookout, and a brief whistle away from the courtyard. He sees someone enter..he whistles. Doesnt mean the killer has the ability to get out, just to get ready. Sarah Lewis came to stay with the Keylers between 2 and 3. the room is almost opposite Marys in the courtyard. So, she is welcome to show up at 3am in that courtyard opposite to Marys room, but she has never seen Mary? Hmm.

Astrakan is almost certainly a fictional build of a suspect, the detail is ridiculous based on the time and the light, and again, we have ZERO proof Hutchinson ever knew Mary, or that he was Wideawake Hat man. Fictional account 4 days late. Again....Hmm. Trying to help...or trying to deflect suspicions about Wideawake?

[The Rookie Detective]

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood. It would be the police creating an alibi for the killer. This is a point against Hutchinson being the Ripper.

I can see your point and it's very logical of course.

But if I was a psychopathic killer who had just made MJK my latest victim; and then the police and press can't even get the facts right, ergo, the time of death, then I would feel compelled to make sure that the facts of the crime were known, and thus would try and interject myself into the investigation as a supposed key witness, so that I could be close to it enough to enjoy it and see the reactions of everyone failing miserably.

It's a misconception to think that all killers want to get away from the crime and be as far removed as possible.
Quite the opposite applies, and some well-known psychopathic serial killers deliberately got close to their own investigation, as part of the thrill of nobody knowing that they were the actual culprit. The feeling of power that would come from being immersed in the investigation into your own crimes.

Of course, many killers do indeed want to get away from the crime and avoid being caught.

But IMO Jack doesn't fit into that bracket.

What's the point of a serial killer who is never identified?

From their perspective, it would be a fine balance between being frustrated to never be known & credited for your work, whilst enjoying basking in the glory of not being found out.
And if another killer was incorrectly credited as the perpetrator of your kill, then that would be another aspect that would be annoying for the killer.

Someone else stealing your thunder so to speak.

Jack's biggest success was also his biggest failure. He succeeded in becoming arguably the most notorious killer in history, but nobody knew who he was, and so he failed to achieve what many other Psychopathic serial killers have; being known.


RD

[Fiver]

How infuriating could it have been for his best work to date being misinterpreted and reported incorrectly?

Could the killer have had an urge to let the world know that Kelly had been murdered in the early hours and couldn't resist the need to come forward and put the record straight?

The killer then invents a character and new name in the form of George Hutchinson...and the rest is history.

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood. It would be the police creating an alibi for the killer. This is a point against Hutchinson being the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

I see you feel strongly enough about this that you posted it twice Wick. You seem to want me to buy your interpretations of terminologies and their practices, you dont have to. Ive read books and lived a fairly long time thus far. If you spend a little time reviewing the idea with some research instead of mostly working on rebuttal, you would be looking at the proposition as whole. Wideawake was a known on Friday into Saturday, and as a possible lookout for people in the courtyard, well positioned. I dont know if he was an accomplice, but his presence there cannot be denied, nor that he had a reason for being there. If you look back you'll note the explanation.., "By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."

Right, which suggests they do not mean someone playing an active role during the commission of the crime. As would be the case of someone suggested to be on lookout.

There is no need to be involved in the commission of the crime, just knowledge of the criminals' intent as relates to the crime. One of your witnesses that saw this same man...Sarah... mentions a young couple, no description, no mention the woman was Mary..whom she would know by sight .....

Once again you are avoiding the facts of the case.
Sarah Lewis told the court she did not know Mary Kelly by sight, as she was merely a visitor, not a resident.

As for Bowyer, he may have seen a suspect, but that doesnt equate to Hutch or Sarahs identifications...the second really is hardly an ID of anything.

The only man seen by Bowyer at 3:00 am would be Astrachan, Hutchinson may have been in the court earlier, and the Britannia-man shortly after. So, Astrachan is the only one who could have been there on present knowledge.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, the 'accomplice' refers to a third-party who had to give assistance to the murderer after the crime was committed. Like a fellow lodger, or family member, or landlord who see's him come in at all hours covered in blood, or cleaning himself up.
Someone saw something, and unless they come forward they will be viewed as an accomplice.

Common sense only tells you that a person stood out across Dorset St. is absolutely no help to a killer inside No.13 - both being out of sight & out of hearing.
I wish people would put a little more thought into this 'accomplice' theory, the reasoning for a person standing so far away is preposterous.

As for Hutchinson laying a false trail idea - Bowyer also saw this strangely dressed man in the court, and Sarah Lewis watched the same couple, Astrachan & Kelly, walk up the court as she approached Millers Court that morning.
Therefore, Hutchinson wasn't making anyone up, two other people saw the same man.

Michael, I think your beliefs are more the result of an active imagination than based on anything factual.

I see you feel strongly enough about this that you posted it twice Wick. You seem to want me to buy your interpretations of terminologies and their practices, you dont have to. Ive read books and lived a fairly long time thus far. If you spend a little time reviewing the idea with some research instead of mostly working on rebuttal, you would be looking at the proposition as whole. Wideawake was a known on Friday into Saturday, and as a possible lookout for people in the courtyard, well positioned. I dont know if he was an accomplice, but his presence there cannot be denied, nor that he had a reason for being there. If you look back you'll note the explanation.., "By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."


There is no need to be involved in the commission of the crime, just knowledge of the criminals' intent as relates to the crime. One of your witnesses that saw this same man...Sarah... mentions a young couple, no description, no mention the woman was Mary..whom she would know by sight being related to people in that courtyard. So...your claim that Hutch is validated by that witness is incorrect. As for Bowyer, he may have seen a suspect, but that doesnt equate to Hutch or Sarahs identifications...the second really is hardly an ID of anything.

Back on the Accomplica pardon, based on the suggestion of this method of getting information going back to the first murders, the only reason for them to have gone this route now is the fact that they have a witness who saw someone suspicious in the immediate area at roughly the same time as the murder. No other Canonical has that evidence present. Other than perhaps Israels...

[mikey559]

I definitely don't believe in an accomplice. Two killers? Nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson changes Wideawake from a possible Accomplice..

Michael, the 'accomplice' refers to a third-party who had to give assistance to the murderer after the crime was committed. Like a fellow lodger, or family member, or landlord who see's him come in at all hours covered in blood, or cleaning himself up.
Someone saw something, and unless they come forward they will be viewed as an accomplice.

Common sense only tells you that a person stood out across Dorset St. is absolutely no help to a killer inside No.13 - both being out of sight & out of hearing.
I wish people would put a little more thought into this 'accomplice' theory, the reasoning for a person standing so far away is preposterous.

As for Hutchinson laying a false trail idea - Bowyer also saw this strangely dressed man in the court, and Sarah Lewis watched the same couple, Astrachan & Kelly, walk up the court as she approached Millers Court that morning.
Therefore, Hutchinson wasn't making anyone up, two other people saw the same man.

Michael, I think your beliefs are more the result of an active imagination than based on anything factual.