Announcement

**Wickerman** · 06-01-2022, 12:04 PM

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

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Just a few questions..

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

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

**Sunny Delight** · 06-01-2022, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Just a few questions..

Does the fact that Hutchinson didn't come forward until the Inquest was over lessen his credibility?
Why would Kelly have asked specifically for sixpence at 2am?
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.
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?
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.

**Abby Normal** · 06-01-2022, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Just a few questions..

Does the fact that Hutchinson didn't come forward until the Inquest was over lessen his credibility?
Why would Kelly have asked specifically for sixpence at 2am?
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.
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?
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.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 06-01-2022, 04:14 PM

Thanks for the responses.

**The Rookie Detective** · 02-24-2024, 10:52 AM

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

**Lewis C** · 02-25-2024, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

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.

**Abby Normal** · 02-25-2024, 05:54 PM

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** · 02-25-2024, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

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** · 02-25-2024, 06:47 PM

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.

**The Baron** · 02-25-2024, 09:03 PM

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

**Wickerman** · 02-26-2024, 04:14 AM

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.

**Wickerman** · 02-26-2024, 04:20 AM

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.

**The Rookie Detective** · 02-26-2024, 08:14 AM

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

.

**Michael W Richards** · 02-26-2024, 01:56 PM

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...?

**Wickerman** · 02-26-2024, 06:25 PM

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.

Announcement

A closer look at George Hutchinson

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment