A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

So, in your estimation, is it normal behavior for a man to unnecessarily place himself at the scene of a violent murder at which he was never present--with knife in hand, no less--just so he won't get a scolding from Dear Old Ma?

Recall that the Scotland Yard files indicate that the police investigated Richardson due to this admission. Your theory has Richardson playing a very dangerous game--with almost no upside.

Just a reflection here, R J. What I believe Mark is suggesting is that Lechmere killed Annie Chapman early in the morning to point a finger at Robert Paul, and then, when Richardson testified and said that as far as he was concerned, there was no woman in the back yard at 4.45, Lechmere was not happy about it at all, knowing, as he would have done, that Richardson was incorrect.

Therefore, it has nothing to do with what Mark himself thinks about Richardson unnecessarily placing himself at a spot where he never was - it is instead about the suggestion that Lechmere would have thought Richardson a bullshitter, provided that the assumption that Lechmere killed Chapman at an early remove in time in order to point a finger at Paul, is correct.

In short, what you have is not Mark suggesting that Richardson told porkies, it is about how Mark suggests that Lechmere would have thought that he did, if he killed Chapman at an early hour.

[rjpalmer]

In short, what you have is not Mark suggesting that Richardson told porkies, it is about how Mark suggests that Lechmere would have thought that he did, if he killed Chapman at an early hour.

I don't think so, Christer, and it's probably best to allow Mark to speak for himself.

The meaning of "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" is abundantly clear isn't it?

This isn't the first time we've heard the suggestion that Richardson shirked his Saturday morning visit and "bulls---ed" his way through the inquest.

Meanwhile, the carman Thompson, also living at No. 29, poses an interesting puzzle for James Scobie, KC, and the "timings that really hurt" Crossmere.

Putting the testimonies of Davis and Mrs. Richardson together, we have Thompson being "called up" somewhere between 3.30 and 3.45 (he's on the second floor and Mrs. Richardson is down below) and leaving the house at around 3.50 (according to both The Times and The Daily Telegraph).

Although Thompson evidently didn't swing by the backyard to empty his bladder before heading out, his departure coincides rather narrowly with the time Lechmere was supposedly luring Mrs. Chapman into the backyard of Hanbury Street on his commute to work. And Mrs. Richardson had been awake since 3.00 a.m., and was listening to the movements in the house--enough that she was certain Thompson hadn't entered the backyard--yet this is also the time you having your commuter entering it.

I don't think Thompson's movements that morning (nor Mrs. Richardson's ears) would help James Scobie in his task to convince a jury of twelve that there is no reasonable doubt.

And this is without even considering the accounts of Richardson, Long, and Cadosche.

As the famous defense lawyers Johnny Cochrane might have said, "if the timings don't fit, you have to acquit."

P.S. I see now that discussing Lechmere has been suspended for the time being, Christer, so we'll have to take this up another day. See you around.

[Michael W Richards]

As the famous defense lawyers Johnny Cochrane might have said, "if the timings don't fit, you have to acquit."

Of course there is always the option of just estimating how wrong some witnesses were so that whatever you happen to be pitching the times work just fine. That method seems to be the instrument of choice for a lot of folks.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?