A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

There are differences between Lewis and Kennedy but here is a key issue. Why was Lewis called to the Inquest due to the fact she possibly saw someone suspicious at half 2, when at 3am Mrs Kennedy saw Mary Kelly alive and well. Not only that but she was also in the company of another female who was never identified nor came forward. Isn't the most logical explanation that Mrs Kennedy's story is a garbled version of what Sarah Lewis eventually told the Inquest?

I suspect Lewis was called because she saw the 'loiterer' (Hutch), opposite Millers Court, whereas Kennedy makes no mention of him.

There are actually two questions concerning that 3:00 am sighting.
First, since the discovery of the murder the papers & public were of a mind Kelly was murdered late Friday morning, after 9:00 am.
So, having a witness say she saw Kelly about 3:00 am, is not so striking. Also, the cry of 'murder' seemed to be heard after 3:30, even around 4:00 am.
The Coroner not calling Kennedy, is not a reflection on the witness. The press reported Kennedy was expecting to be called, she had been interviewed by Abberline.
If, the Coroner believed the murder took place between 3:30-4:00 am, why call Maxwell?
We also know from the testimony that further sittings were expected, Kennedy may have been scheduled to appear after the adjournment - which, never happened.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I am not certain of the exact timetable of events, however I am as sure as I can be that George Hutchinson's story is not true.

I won't go into the reasons why here, the doubts re Hutchinson's evidence have been well aired on these boards on many occasions.
I would simply ask people to take part in a simple thought experiment.

If George Hutchinson's story regarding what he saw in the early hours of the 9th of November is not true, what does the case look like?

I think that this one very specific exercise takes us tantalisingly close to solving this case.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think it's also relevant that the inquest took place on the Monday after the murder, and was done and dusted on the same day.

Nobody; literally nobody, would have expected the coroner to have concluded the inquest on the same day it started, and so soon after the actual murder took place.

That would have included the killer.

Make of that what you will.

[c.d.]

If George Hutchinson's story regarding what he saw in the early hours of the 9th of November is not true, what does the case look like?

I think that this one very specific exercise takes us tantalisingly close to solving this case.

Well I for one am not connecting the dots here. Can you be a little more specific to help out the slow witted among us?

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Well I for one am not connecting the dots here. Can you be a little more specific to help out the slow witted among us?

c.d.

Hi c.d. I wasn't trying to be smart, I was only reluctant to post, again, the points which throw doubt on Hutchinson's statement.
They have been discussed on these boards on many occasions.

I was simply asking people to consider what the case looked like if we discount Hutchinson's evidence.

With regard to why I personally reject Hutchinson's evidence, I list some points below:

• Mary Jane was "very much intoxicated" and was with a "short stout man" who had a carry out, so they were clearly intent on consuming more alcohol.
• If Mary Jane was very drunk at 11.45pm and intent on drinking more alcohol, is it likely that she was wandering the streets at 1.45am?
• Hutchinson is hardly mentioned in any of the memoirs or memoranda of officers involved in the case, although Abberline did take his statement seriously.
• Walter Dew discounted Hutchinson's evidence and suggested that he was mistaken, just like Mrs Maxwell.
• It was raining heavily in the early hours of 9th November, so why did Hutchinson lean against a lampost getting soaked? Why not shelter in a doorway?
• Hutchinson also says that after talking to Mary Jane he "walked about all night", in the rain! Why would he?
• The "Echo" of 13th November reported that "a very reduced importance" was given to evidence "by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of her murder".

So in essence, I think that Blotchy killed Mary Jane, and was responsible for the other canonical murders.

Nothing spectacular here!
No famous person, no conspiracy, no cover up, just a short, stout, anonymous, murdering, psychopath.

I think that the killer was Blotchy, and that he died fairly soon after the final murder, and I think that his name will be registered among residents of Whitechapel who died in late 1888 or 1889.

Bujt I could be wrong c.d., I've been wrong before.

[c.d.]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. And no, I didn't think you were trying to be smart.

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. And no, I didn't think you were trying to be smart.

c.d.

Cheers c.d.

[Wickerman]

[B] . . .

I was simply asking people to consider what the case looked like if we discount Hutchinson's evidence. . .

Perhaps I'm one of the few, but from my perspective:
Kelly was seen entering her room with Blotchy about 11:45 pm (Cox), Kelly was singing, she was still heard singing about one o'clock (Cox), her room was quiet and dark by 1:30 am (Prater), Kelly was seen outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.

We could write Hutchinson out altogether, it would have no effect on the above events that night.

[c.d.]

For no reason other than just a gut feeling, Blotchy always seemed rather harmless to me and comes across as one of those poor guys who wants sex but also wants to delude himself that he is also getting the girlfriend experience along with it. Kelly seemed rather comfortable with him which makes it seem like maybe he was a regular client.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Kelly was seen entering her room with Blotchy about 11:45 pm (Cox)

Did Cox indicate in any way that Blotchy had seen her? That would be significant.

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Kelly was seen entering her room with Blotchy about 11:45 pm (Cox)

Did Cox indicate in any way that Blotchy had seen her? That would be significant.

c.d.

Mrs Cox said that Mary Jane and Blotchy went up the court in front of her.

Later in her statement she describes Blotchy's face in detail.
She also says that she would recognise him again.

This would seem to imply that at some point Blotchy and Mrs Cox were facing, or very nearly, facing one another.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario where Blotchy was not aware of Mrs Cox's presence.

[c.d.]

Thanks. But then that begs the question why would he go on to kill Mary after having been so clearly seen?

c.d.

[c.d.]

You have to think that it would have been a fairly easy task for the police to go to nearby pubs in the area asking about a Blotchy Faced man who bought a pail of beer.

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

You have to think that it would have been a fairly easy task for the police to go to nearby pubs in the area asking about a Blotchy Faced man who bought a pail of beer.

c.d.

Fair point c.d.

It's always puzzled me why we have no records of what must have been extensive enquiries, regarding statements from landlords, bar staff and pub drinkers.
Polly Nichols was also very intoxicated on the morning of her murder.

[The Rookie Detective]

I doubt Blotchy was the killer.

Unless he stayed the night, waited for her to stop singing, then went to bed with her, waited for her to sleep and then attacked her while she was sleeping.

Otherwise, the time frame is too wide between Blotchy entering the room, to the point a cry of "oh murder!" is heard by 2 different women around 4am.

I think it's more likely that Sarah Lewis saw the killer standing opposite the court.

He spent the evening stalking his prey; perhaps after having seen her taking Blotchy man into her room.

He waited for his moment for the court to be clear, for the lights to go out in Mary's room and for the court to be in relative silence.

Then, sometime between 3.45-3.55am, he makes his move...

He casually walks down the passageway, turns the corner to stand by the broken window, slowly slips the coat/curtain covering the window and glances in to see Mary sleeping over at the far side of the bed. He then reaches through the window, lifts the latch and unlocks it. He then goes back around to the door, glances up through the alleyway back towards the street to check it's clear and then carefully opens the door and slips quietly into the room. He then closes the door, takes out his knife and then just stands for a few moments, just staring at her sleeping. He then approaches the bed. As he kneels on the bed, she stirs, and he instinctively grabs her and pushes her head down into the bed to muffle her calling out. He then lifts her head and just as she calls out "oh murder!" he savagely cuts her throat as she faces the partition wall.
After she bleeds out, he then takes his coat off, rolls up his shirt sleeves and then moves her body to the middle of the bed, before beginning his post mortem mutilations on her.
He was likely covered in her blood, but after spending around 10 minutes on her, he then stops, regains his senses from his meniacal slashing, stabbing and cutting, catches his breath and then throws some items into the fire. Before he leaves he puts his coat back on and then carefully opens the door to check the coast is clear. He goes around to the window and takes a quick peek through the window to check out his work, and then walks out the court and slips away into the night.

He is not seen and is not heard.

At least, that's what he thinks.

But Sarah Lewis saw him.

She sees him when he is first checking out the court.

He likely leaves and comes back, perhaps to collect his knife in preparation.

...


The killer then possibly attends the public inquest, to see how his work is talked about.

He is then furious that the coroner decides to wrap things up so quickly and make his efforts seems unimportant in comparison to previous murders.

He doesn't get the response he intended.

The inquest closes and then he leaves the building.

Feeling so aggrieved, he then walks straight to the police station and gives an account of standing outside the court.

He now wants to be seen, he demands it.

He gives a false name and presents himself as George Hutchinson.

A man who was supposedly on friendly terms with the victim and a man who gives the grandest description of the man he claims to have seen with the victim.

The man who came forward as George Hutchinson was likely the real killer.

Abberline fell for his BS, because as a psychopath the killer was able to fool even Abberline.

Think "The Usual Suspects" movie.

So who was George Hutchinson?

Another character adopted by a great actor no doubt.