A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

This is interesting. Are you willing to share images of the 2 signatures and the report from Frank Leander here?

This all surfaced in 2009, and there was a very long thread of more than 2000 posts. Basically, most of it became a brawl between a poster named Ben (who suggested that Hutchinson was the killer) and myself.
If you have the stomach for it, you are welcome to read the whole exchange. If I was to describe it, it basically went along the lines of my pointing out the similarities in the signatures and Ben saying that no, they were not similar in the least.
I then contacted Frank Leander, and he gave his view. Ben refused to accept that Leander said that the two were alike, and did all he could to dismiss Leanders claims. When he did, I asked Leander to clarify, which he did, and Ben denied again that Leander spoke of a similarity that pointed to a common originator. This went on to a time until I backed Ben into a corner from which he could not find any way out, since Frank Leander was able to tell that my take on what he said was the correct one. At this stage, Ben answered by claiming that Leander only said so because he had gotten very tired with me and had decided to "fob me off".

This is my picture, of course, and as I said, you are welcome to wade through the bog of that thread if you feel like it. It is called "Hutch in the 1911 census", and as I said, it is from 2009.

If you want a condensed version, then you may want to begin with post 120, where I first say that I find the signatures remarkable similar. A link will get you there: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ge8#post120474

If you want to see the signatures, post 567 is useful. It has the witness signature on top, followed by Topping Hutchinson wedding signature from 1898 and nine signatures by Topping from an inquest at the bottom. This is the link: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e38#post120474

If you want to see my posts where I present Leanders take (and I may have missed some of it, it took me an hour and a half to dig through ...) you will find it in the posts 1202, 1255, 1264, 1338, 1947, 1959 and 2309.

Enjoy.

[rjpalmer]

This might be of interest.

Follow these two links to posts by 'Sam Flynn' who made side-by-side comparisons between Toppy and the signatures on the witness statement:

JTR Forums Post 15:

Hutchinson and Kelly? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

Or this forum, Post 1517:

Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Sam's suspicion is that Sue Iremonger was accidently given a wedding certificate that was actually filled out by the registrar, and not the original---hence her failure to identify the witness as "Toppy." He makes a good case.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks rd
can you or anyone also post witness hutch SIG?

Hi Abby


I know that rjpalmer uploaded a few of the recorded signatures of the alleged witness George Hutchinson, from the inquest and various other official documents.

I am not sure what thread that was on sorry.


It would be important to see those in context with the post above for sure.


RD

[Abby Normal]

Interesting...

A copy of his signature I posted on the "Elusive George Hutchinson" thread...






And the alleged "Ripper" handwriting.


I agree with Christer that the writing is very, very similar.


IF we could prove this is the SAME George Hutchinson that turned up at the 11th hour to give an overly detailed witness statement, then the chance of him having very similar handwriting to the alleged Ripper correspondence would be a striking coincidence.

Of course, it doesn't prove that Hutchinson is the Ripper

But it may go some way to proving that Hutchinson was the fantasist behind the Ripper letters.




RD

Thanks rd
can you or anyone also post witness hutch SIG?

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting...

A copy of his signature I posted on the "Elusive George Hutchinson" thread...






And the alleged "Ripper" handwriting.


I agree with Christer that the writing is very, very similar.


IF we could prove this is the SAME George Hutchinson that turned up at the 11th hour to give an overly detailed witness statement, then the chance of him having very similar handwriting to the alleged Ripper correspondence would be a striking coincidence.

Of course, it doesn't prove that Hutchinson is the Ripper

But it may go some way to proving that Hutchinson was the fantasist behind the Ripper letters.




RD

[Michael W Richards]

1. Aiding & Abetting applies to both our arguments. Any assistance given in the perpetration of, or in covering up of a crime, is aiding & Abetting.

2.Gatting ready is pointless if he can't get out, that makes no sense.
It's clear you are trying to find an argument to justify the presence of a lookout. There just is no logical reason as the killer can't exit any other way.

3.Lewis never said she hadn't seen her, she never said one way or the other. She just didn't know her by sight.

4. So, who was this lookout looking out for?
Given that he showed up about 2:15-30 or thereabouts, and by himself.
How did he know who was in No.13, even if there was anyone in No.13 with Mary at all?

Just have time to deal with a bit about the above;

1. As for what definitions the word Accomplice contains the Wideawake Mans vigil as an accomplice certainly fits within those parameters. Im not sure actually why you would even want to debate that. The fact that the pardon offer which had been denied until then is finally offered, within 36 hours of the crime, is validation of that.
2. You start by suggesting he would be trapped with or without a warning if someone was entering the court, and finish with a suggestion that he would have alternate exits available. Well, for the first part....yeah, he couldnt get out. But he could be ready for someone, blow out a candle, stand back from being seen through the window, confront the intruder...on the second part, there is one way out. Through the tunnel. 20ish feet, with the door to Praters room on one side, the tuck shop on the other.
3. I was suggesting that if Sarah was welcome at someones home at 2 in the morning in that court, then she would be familiar to the tenants and has been there before that night. So when she says she hadnt seen Mary, it might just be she didnt know she had.
4. If he is an accomplice...a lookout...he is watching for anyone that might be entering that tunnel to go to the court. He could whistle, killer would hear it, and he could prepare to hide or confront and flee. People do walk through that street all night. I can see where having a spotter would not only be handy, but required for a murderer within that courtyard.

[Tab]

On the Hutchinson matter, I made up my mind a long time ago, when Hutchinson was still a very hotly debated person, awarded suspect status by a fair few posters. What I did was to send one of the three signatures from the police report on Hutchinson to Frank Leander of SKL, the Swedish Crime Laboratory (today named NFC, National Forensic Center).

This is interesting. Are you willing to share images of the 2 signatures and the report from Frank Leander here?

[Fisherman]

On the Hutchinson matter, I made up my mind a long time ago, when Hutchinson was still a very hotly debated person, awarded suspect status by a fair few posters. What I did was to send one of the three signatures from the police report on Hutchinson to Frank Leander of SKL, the Swedish Crime Laboratory (today named NFC, National Forensic Center). I did that because I thought that the signature was a carbon copy of the signature of George William Topping Hutchinson, a plumber, who had a son, Reg Hutchinson, who had made the claim that his father was the witness of Ripper fame.
Frank Leander, a very highly experienced specialist, compared the signatures and concluded that they were most likely by the same hand. He added that to be able to make a legally binding commitment about it, he would have needed ten examples of both signatures, but he also said that he fully expected any forthcoming material to further verify his take that it was in all likelihood the same man who signed the signatures..

Once I knew this, I found that in order to dismiss the suggestion that the two signatures were by the same man, it would require two things:

A/ It would require that the two men, supposedly completely unknown to each other, for some reason wrote their names in a fashion that was so very similar that a forensic specialist felt convinced that the signatures had the same originator. This is a tough obstacle to overcome - but the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who write very similarly, so it was perhaps not a total clincher.

B/It would also require, though, that the witness, who just happened to have a signature that was so similar to that of George William Topping Hutchinson that it made a forensic specialist say that the signatures were in all likelihood by the same man, either chose to call himself George Hutchinson or was actually named George Hutchinson.

Once I considered these two things, the matter was decided for me. I consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt that the witness was George William Topping Hutchinson.

Of course, it may be that the witness George William Topping Hutchinson could have been the killer of Mary Kelly, so that particular detail is left open. But the identity of the man is not, not for me.

[Wickerman]

Excellent response and comments as always Jon.

I can't argue with your logic.

The only thing I would add is whether the killer tried to insert himself into the investigation by way of written correspondence?

I know that most; if not all of the written correspondences are deemed to be fake, but for the few that may have been authentic; could it have been an outlet for the killer to connect closer to the investigation?

RD

Hi RD.

it's just I see most arguments offered against Hutchinson tend to stretch credibility, or are entirely fabricated without the slightest trace of evidence.
Accusations against Hutchinson are mostly what one member chooses to believe as opposed to what the true evidence suggests.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD.
So, your argument basically boils down to saying - "If I were a nutcase, then my logic would dictate....etc."
Or,...."If I were of unsound mind, my logic should follow this path?"

Are you trying to propose a logical reaction from an illogical state of mind?




Indeed they do, but they do not risk being caught, they mostly do this to make fools of the police. The trouble is, if a witness steps forward suggesting there was a third-party involved, yet no-one else saw this third-party, that just draws unwanted attention to himself. As was the case with Richardson, who was intensly interrogated by police. No killer chooses to put themselves under such scrutiny.




Answer - Not being identified is the preference, it permits him to keep killing people.

Question: - What is the point of a serial killer who is identified?

Answer - None, its the end of the road for his fun & games.



I would suggest the correct attribution is only a concern after the killer is caught, no killer that I have ever read about was concerned about him getting the true credit for his crimes before he was caught, to the extent that he would step forward and inject himself into the case. I maybe wrong, but none come to mind.

Excellent response and comments as always Jon.

I can't argue with your logic.

The only thing I would add is whether the killer tried to insert himself into the investigation by way of written correspondence?

I know that most; if not all of the written correspondences are deemed to be fake, but for the few that may have been authentic; could it have been an outlet for the killer to connect closer to the investigation?

RD

[Wickerman]

What do you think Aiding and/or Abetting means? ....

Aiding & Abetting applies to both our arguments. Any assistance given in the perpetration of, or in covering up of a crime, is aiding & Abetting.

Doesnt mean the killer has the ability to get out, just to get ready.

Gatting ready is pointless if he can't get out, that makes no sense.
It's clear you are trying to find an argument to justify the presence of a lookout. There just is no logical reason as the killer can't exit any other way.

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.

Lewis never said she hadn't seen her, she never said one way or the other. She just didn't know her by sight.

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?

So, who was this lookout looking out for?
Given that he showed up about 2:15-30 or thereabouts, and by himself.
How did he know who was in No.13, even if there was anyone in No.13 with Mary at all?

[Wickerman]

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.....

Hi RD.
So, your argument basically boils down to saying - "If I were a nutcase, then my logic would dictate....etc."
Or,...."If I were of unsound mind, my logic should follow this path?"

Are you trying to propose a logical reaction from an illogical state of mind?

..... 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.

Indeed they do, but they do not risk being caught, they mostly do this to make fools of the police. The trouble is, if a witness steps forward suggesting there was a third-party involved, yet no-one else saw this third-party, that just draws unwanted attention to himself. As was the case with Richardson, who was intensly interrogated by police. No killer chooses to put themselves under such scrutiny.

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

Answer - Not being identified is the preference, it permits him to keep killing people.

Question: - What is the point of a serial killer who is identified?

Answer - None, its the end of the road for his fun & games.

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.

I would suggest the correct attribution is only a concern after the killer is caught, no killer that I have ever read about was concerned about him getting the true credit for his crimes before he was caught, to the extent that he would step forward and inject himself into the case. I maybe wrong, but none come to mind.

[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.