A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

Jon, could the fact that he waited a few days before coming forward, be because he was the actual killer and wanted the public and press to know that Kelly had been murdered earlier?

Seriously RD, "who cares?" - how many killers prefer to put as much distance between them and the victim, as opposed to lingering around to try deceive the police?
That's the stuff of Hollywood drama, rather than reality. I'm not saying it has never happened, but the most likely action of the killer is to take off as fast & as far as he can, and lay low for a few days.

If we imagine just for a moment that Hutchinson was the real killer...how would he feel if the press and police had got it wrong with the timings?

I would hope the true killer would be highly amused if the police got it all wrong.
He wasn't to know he had not been seen through any of the tenement windows in the court, so risking coming forward is putting his head in the lions mouth.

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

I think the real killer would prefer that.

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

And on the same basis, could the witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly the following morning after her actual murder, have been instructed by the police to state incorrect details on purpose as a ruse to draw out the killer?

Just a thought

One detail we as students of the case often overlook is, the depth of information that has survived is nothing like what the police had in their files. We cannot find the real G.H., but it was necessary that a witness established their identity to the police. We just do not have access to that information.
Which is why I feel many of our modern theories are cooked up from a false premise.

[c.d.]

The answer to all the "could" questions is yes. Does that mean that all those scenarios did happen? No.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Michael.
You said:
"Whats interesting about Hutch's claim is that he downplays the notion that the man Sarah saw was perhaps an accomplice, in Hutchs story, its now just a friend looking out for Mary...but by coming in 4 days after the fact with his story...?"

This appears to be a popular reason for suspicion, but the fact remains (factual data is often avoided), that Kelly's time of death was only officially published on Sunday. Prior to that, both on Friday & Saturday, the press were publishing accounts of Kelly being killed after 9:00am Friday morning, many hours after Hutchinson had seen her.
It would be pointless for Hutch to make an issue of him seeing her between 2-2:30 am, if she had only been murdered after 9:00am. He would be making a fool of himself.

Therefore, the argument that he waited 3 or 4 days before coming forward is easily explained, not only Hutchinson but the whole population of the East End would have been under the same impression that was being published in the press, that she was most likely murdered after 9:00am.
Once the facts came out on Sunday, he says he spoke to a constable, but after talking with another lodger on Monday, went himself to the police station.

Jon, could the fact that he waited a few days before coming forward, be because he was the actual killer and wanted the public and press to know that Kelly had been murdered earlier?

If we imagine just for a moment that Hutchinson was the real killer...how would he feel if the press and police had got it wrong with the timings?

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.

And on the same basis, could the witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly the following morning after her actual murder, have been instructed by the police to state incorrect details on purpose as a ruse to draw out the killer?

Just a thought


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.
You said:
"Whats interesting about Hutch's claim is that he downplays the notion that the man Sarah saw was perhaps an accomplice, in Hutchs story, its now just a friend looking out for Mary...but by coming in 4 days after the fact with his story...?"

This appears to be a popular reason for suspicion, but the fact remains (factual data is often avoided), that Kelly's time of death was only officially published on Sunday. Prior to that, both on Friday & Saturday, the press were publishing accounts of Kelly being killed after 9:00am Friday morning, many hours after Hutchinson had seen her.
It would be pointless for Hutch to make an issue of him seeing her between 2-2:30 am, if she had only been murdered after 9:00am. He would be making a fool of himself.

Therefore, the argument that he waited 3 or 4 days before coming forward is easily explained, not only Hutchinson but the whole population of the East End would have been under the same impression that was being published in the press, that she was most likely murdered after 9:00am.
Once the facts came out on Sunday, he says he spoke to a constable, but after talking with another lodger on Monday, went himself to the police station.

[Michael W Richards]

What Hutchinson does is very much like what Leon Goldstein does....they come in to explain the unknown man seen by a witness or witnesses. By claiming to be the person seen by the witness. Wideawake was known about long before Hutch comes in, and the black bag man didnt come in until the Tuesday night of that week, so advance information in that case also.

Whats interesting about Hutch's claim is that he downplays the notion that the man Sarah saw was perhaps an accomplice, in Hutchs story, its now just a friend looking out for Mary...but by coming in 4 days after the fact with his story...?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Jon

I completely agree with your assessment in your last 2 posts.

It was my error that I didn't put my comments into the correct context.

You are of course right that for anyone giving a different name, that has no bearing on whether they're guilty, but I was referring more to the idea that if the individual who came forward as George Hutchinson and who gave such a detailed account and description of a man he saw with MJK; if he then chose to give a false name on top of that, it would make him more likely to have been her killer.
I was being far too generalized in my comment and a name change by itself means nothing, but contextually, a man who appears to be a key witness and who cannot be traced either before or after; they're more likely to have been the killer if they then chose to give a false name in addition to their statement.
With Lechmere it's different because we can trace his full life story and he has also used the name Cross before, but with Hutchinson it's a mystery.

My fault for being too generalized in my previous posts.


RD


.

[Wickerman]

Hi RD.

You say:
"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."

My suggestion, for what it's worth is, that it would be advisable to find out if the police had ever met with either Backert or Cleary face to face, I'm sure they had.
If I'm right then it would be preposterous for the same person to adopt another name to make himself a principal witness (Hutchinson), when the police are already familiar with what he looks like under a different name.

[Wickerman]

The 'quote' feature doesnt seem to be working at the moment.

Hi RD, you say:
"Now IF he gave a false name, then it's highly likely that he was the killer."

You don't seem to be aware just how common it was for regular people to adopt alternate names, we have too many examples of people being known by different names, which makes your assumption somewhat redundant I'm afraid.

[The Baron]

The exact time of deth of Kelly is unknown, without it there cannot be a solid alibi, Barnett is a suspect that should be researched further imho, why he is not so popular at these corners, maybe because of the exausting and empty discussions and tireless attempts to promote the like of Maybrick and Lechmere which killed ripperology in the last years.



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

hi lewis
my quote function isnt working.

anyway barnett said he was playing a game called wist with friends when kelly was murdered and his friends backed that up to police. however friends lie for their friends. ive seen many an alibi go away because friend, lover, family member etc lied and provided a false alibi. hes still a valid suspect imho.

[Lewis C]

hi lewis and rd
aussie george was found to be at sea, so not the ripper and probably not tje same hutch.

a Topping Hutchinson was found who claimed hutch was his ancestor, but he found under dubious circs and his hutchs handwriting didnt match IMHO though some think it does and that hes probably correct. he claimed hutch was a plumber and had a great memory. he also said the story in his family was that hutch saw a rich man someone like a churchill as a suspect. imho its a bunch of bs and the real hutch has never been found. which makes me think rd is probably correct and that wasnt his real name.

Thanks Abby, that helps.

I have a question about your opening post. You mentioned that Joe Barnett has an alibi. This is the first time I've heard that claimed. I believe that some people still consider him a suspect, but if he has an alibi, then he shouldn't be considered a suspect any more than Michael Ostrog. Unless someone wants to argue that Kelly wasn't a Ripper murder and Barnett may have killed Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, but that would seem to be a rather far-fetched position.

[Abby Normal]

hi lewis and rd
aussie george was found to be at sea, so not the ripper and probably not tje same hutch.

a Topping Hutchinson was found who claimed hutch was his ancestor, but he found under dubious circs and his hutchs handwriting didnt match IMHO though some think it does and that hes probably correct. he claimed hutch was a plumber and had a great memory. he also said the story in his family was that hutch saw a rich man someone like a churchill as a suspect. imho its a bunch of bs and the real hutch has never been found. which makes me think rd is probably correct and that wasnt his real name.

[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.