A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Lewis C]

As I understand it, nobody has ever been able to find Hutchinson either before or after his appearance at the 11th hour to give a truly astonishing account.

Hi RD,

I believe that a day or 2 after he gave his account, he accompanied the police in a walk through the area in a search for A-man. Of course, they didn't find him. There's also a Ripperologist article from a few years ago about a man named George Hutchinson going to Australia shortly after the McKenzie murder, but if I'm not mistaken, it's uncertain whether this was the same George Hutchinson.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the key to this lies in whether George Hutchinson was actually his real name.

I would suggest that IF Hutchinson was who he said he was, then his story may still be untrue, but the intent behind it stems from a false reality.

In other words, his reality may or may not have been truthful, ergo, he implies he knew Kelly well which in his reality may have been the case, but in actual fact, the truth may have been he was obsessed with her.

Now IF he gave a false name, then it's highly likely that he was the killer. I say this because his account of events feels very much like a fantasy.

You could easily replace the name George Hutchinson with Albert Bachert for example. I am not suggesting George was Bachert, but the way in which Bachert was proven to have inserted himself into the investigation at every turn is somewhat reminiscent of Hutchinson coming in with an overly elaborate and detailed story.

As I understand it, nobody has ever been able to find Hutchinson either before or after his appearance at the 11th hour to give a truly astonishing account.

That in itself would strongly suggest that the name George Hutchinson was fabricated and that he never existed.

The question then is...Who was he?

Someone like Albert Bachert or John Arnold (Cleary) perhaps.

It's also interesting to note that in both the murders of Kelly and Stride, there is a witness who comes along with an elaborate story of events close to the murder, and yet neither man seem to exist outside of their brief self-imposed connection to the case.

George Hutchinson
Israel Schwartz


Both false names, and both giving fictional stories IMO.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the responses.

[Abby Normal]

Just a few questions..

1. Does the fact that Hutchinson didn't come forward until the Inquest was over lessen his credibility?
2. Why would Kelly have asked specifically for sixpence at 2am?
3. I accept of course that not everyone finds it strange but does anyone else find it strange that Hutchison stooped down to look him in the face? It’s probably unimportant but it just seems like strange behaviour that apparently elicited no response from either AM or Kelly.
4. Kelly apparently needed money; she met AM near Thrawl Street then headed back to Miller’s Court with Hutchinson following. Why would they have stood outside Miller’s Court talking for three minutes before going inside?
5. Why would Hutchinson have gone into Miller’s Court to see if he could see them? Surely he’d have realised that they’d have gone into Kelly’s room? Hutchinson knew Kelly after all.

Hi herlock

1. yes, of course it does. he just happens to walk into the police station the moment it was over?cmon
2. going rate
3. yes, hutch wants to make it clear that he got a good look at the man. and that the man was not happy about it.
4. they probably wouldnt.
5. I think that hutchs aman story is fake. i think he may never had actually seen mary but went to her room and realized she was with someone so then stood outside the court waiting for her guest to leave, where sarah lewis saw him.

if pressed I would say that hutch was a merely an attention seeking time waster who thought he could gain fame and fortune from her death by the ripper. i think he did know mary and went to her place that night, perhaps looking for a place to crash and or hook up. his story has all the marks of a contrived story to get police to beleive he saw mary with the ripper.

however, of course the alternative is he was the ripper, and was worried that sarah lewis might have known who he was and /or ID him to police so he thought it better to come forward as a witness than be sought after as a suspect. it could also explain why the ripper laid low for a long time before striking again with Mkenzie.

one thing i do know-he was not a credible witness telling the whole truth. everything about hutch and his story is dodgy.

[Sunny Delight]

Just a few questions..

1. Does the fact that Hutchinson didn't come forward until the Inquest was over lessen his credibility?
2. Why would Kelly have asked specifically for sixpence at 2am?
3. I accept of course that not everyone finds it strange but does anyone else find it strange that Hutchison stooped down to look him in the face? It’s probably unimportant but it just seems like strange behaviour that apparently elicited no response from either AM or Kelly.
4. Kelly apparently needed money; she met AM near Thrawl Street then headed back to Miller’s Court with Hutchinson following. Why would they have stood outside Miller’s Court talking for three minutes before going inside?
5. Why would Hutchinson have gone into Miller’s Court to see if he could see them? Surely he’d have realised that they’d have gone into Kelly’s room? Hutchinson knew Kelly after all.

Good fair questions Herlock. For me:

1) The fact he came forward after the Inquest is inconsequential in my opinion. The Inquest lasted one day and Hutchinson had been deliberating whether to go to the Police or not. He confides in a friend at the Lodging house who tells him he should. This is not unusual.

2) Sixpence would have been the going rate for a soliciting woman with a room to charge a customer. It may be that she was friendly with Hutchinson who could give her the money to prevent her having to work on the street as it were. Alternatively she propositioned Hutchinson who just didn't have the money. I think Abberline asked him this because in his cover note he wrote witness sometimes gave the deceased a few shillings.

3) It did elicit a response albeit non verbal. He looked at Hutchinson stern. I take that to me he frowned at him in a kind of get lost, what are you looking at manner.

4) It may not have been three minutes. But if it was we will never know- Kelly eventually tells AK man to come along he wll be comfortable. So the implication is AK man was maybe not that fussed on going to the room for whatever reason. Maybe he thought there could be a man in her life who might return or that it just wouldn't suit. Kelly's words strike me as her assuaging his apprehension.

5) This bit doesn't make sense to me. It may be the Newspaper embellishing the story. If Hutch did say it then it is one very difficult to understand.

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike, I'll just throw in my tuppenceworth...

Just a few questions..

1. Does the fact that Hutchinson didn't come forward until the Inquest was over lessen his credibility?

1. I don't think it affects his credibility one way or the other.
   With this case, from our perspective, most of us accept that Kelly was murdered about 3:00am, yet the general public in 1888 did not know that. All the Friday evening papers reported that she was killed late Friday morning, after 9:00am. Even the Saturday papers promoted this belief. It was only on Sunday where one official opinion was published that she was likely murdered around 3:00am.
   I don't see why Hutchinson should feel compelled to come forward when he read that Kelly had been murdered after 9:00am, especially as he had already told one constable on Sunday morning. Hutch had been in Dorset st. about 2-3:00am, so what purpose was there for him to tell police he had seen her six hours before?
   What use was that to police?
   We don't know if he read the Sunday report, it wasn't in the local press, but it appears he discussed the case with someone at the Home, which encouraged him to come forward.
   When we look at the facts & circumstances in detail it all seems quite reasonable to me.
   
   

2. Why would Kelly have asked specifically for sixpence at 2am?