A closer look at George Hutchinson

[The Rookie Detective]

I believe that after the statement was given, he accompanied the police in a search for the man he described.

As to your second sentence, I believe that what you mean is that we have no record of his activities in the period of about 24 hours after the inquest ended, but before he gave his statement. There's no reason why we should expect there to be a record of that, so I don't see why you think that's of any significance.

Hi Lewis


Ah, bad grammar on my part.

I was referring to why Hutchinson can't he found BEFORE he came forward to give a statement.

He doesn't exist in any census records for example.

We have zero clue of his antecedents.

That is particularly odd IMO.


At least with Lechmere, we have almost a full life story.


That is what you'd expect from an innocent man coming forward as a witness.


What I find strange is that Lechmere gives the name of "Cross" ...

... a name that he had used before and the name he was known by at work.

But because he used 2 different surnames (both contextually correct to his life) there's a swarm of researchers who pick up on the "false name!" aspect...


...but when it comes to the likes of Hutchinson and Schwartz; its frowned upon when its suggested that they both used false names.


So we have a situation whereby we have certain "witnesses" who may have used false names

OR

Thousands of learned and experienced researchers being unable to find either man after 136 years.


Logical explanation or researcher incompetence?


Now if we were talking about a case prior to 1800, then I could accept not being able to find Hutchinson or Schwartz, but 1888 should be relatively easy in comparison.

And yet nobody is seemingly clever enough to find either man


Really?



So let's go with the idea that they DIDNT use false names... where does that leave us?



RD

[Lewis C]

And we can't find Hutchinson after the statement was given...

And we can't find Hutchinson BEFORE he came forward AFTER the inquest?

I believe that after the statement was given, he accompanied the police in a search for the man he described.

As to your second sentence, I believe that what you mean is that we have no record of his activities in the period of about 24 hours after the inquest ended, but before he gave his statement. There's no reason why we should expect there to be a record of that, so I don't see why you think that's of any significance.

[Fiver]

Israel Schwartz "Version of what he witnessed ", not a story , let's start there .

Otherwise all the witnesses are just storytellers.

It's a common way of putting a finger on the scales. Witnesses that people don't like have "stories" or "claims". Witnesses that they do like have "accounts" or "statements".

[FISHY1118]

If your saying that a witness can be believed but not relevant to the proceedings, if thats what you are saying, is fine by me. As I stated that could easily apply to Fanny, who as I said didnt see Liz after 12:35, she didnt see Eagle arrive, or Lave at the gates, she didnt see Israel coming up on Liz while a broad shouldered man was tugging on her, she didnt see Israel flee...followed by yet another man with a pipe, and she did not see Louis arrive. So as to how Liz dies, she isnt really important here. What she does do though is provide eye witness account of that street for "nearly the whole half hour", and who she does see is Leon at around 12:55..but he passes right by the club gates. She also notes the young couple on the street. They are also interviewed that night by the police and Fanny speaks with them after the discovery is announced.

The point I was attempting to make with little success is that the story given by Israel Schwartz would be relevant to the Inquest mandates. He says he saw the victim when no-one else did, being assaulted at around 12:45...when Blackwells earliest cut estimates begin around 12:46. It would be a logical assumption that if this actually happened, then the man seen with Liz likely makes the cut. Ruling out several other categories for How she dies. The issue with my argument with Herlock on what the Inquest is designed to address is that the cumulative information presented to the jury is to be considered when assessing How she dies. But ultimately all that evidence is condensed into a declaration by the jury of either Suicide or Accident or Natural or Wilful murder or Undetermined Causes. In all the Ripper victim Inquests the evidence suggested Wilful Murder to those jurors.

Israel Schwartz "Version of what he witnessed ", not a story , let's start there .

Otherwise all the witnesses are just storytellers.

[JeffHamm]

...
Thanks for the information on Joseph Isaacs.

"The Whitechapel Murders. The police are still without any clue to the perpetrators of the recent crimes. It is stated that there is no grounds for suspicion against the Polish Jew Joseph Isaacs who was recently arrested in Drury-lane., and whose conduct at the lodging-house near to the scene of the murder in Dorset-street was so suspicious that special inquiries were instituted by the police. The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves that he could not have been connected with the murder.' - 23 December 1888 Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

So Isaacs disappeared around the time of the murder, but it was because he had been arrested. He could not have been Hutchison's Astrakhan Man.
...

Ah, that puts that to rest then. Was fun while it lasted.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The man pursued story came from a club member.

"In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation." - 1 October 1888 Echo.

William West was the club secretary. West had already gone home before the body was discovered, but I'd have expected him to have heard of the attempts of his fellow club members to contact the police. Rather than confusing that with the Schwartz account, that might be Wess confirming it, but showing that Pipeman thought Broadshouldered Man had accused Schwartz of being a murderer by calling him 'Lipski". Schwartz fleeing could have been interpreted as a sign of guilt by Pipeman.

Thanks Fiver.

Yes, I can see how your explanation could be the case. What I was thinking the confusion was more on the part of the journalist than the teller of the story though, blending bits together, perhaps due to interviewing multiple people at the time and hearing aspects of both the Schwartz-Pipeman incident and the search for the police along Fairclough, and the reporter thought these were aspects of the same incident.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

He was actively sought after by the police in connection with the murder of MJK.

Thanks RD.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

The proof is in the pudding cd. Was Israel Schwartz's story, or George Hutchinsons, ever validated in any way by virtue providing any sort of discovery of the witness provided evidence? Do we know Piepman, or BSM was ever found and interviewed? Was the man Hutch referred to thought to be found in the person of Joseph Issacs? If Issacs wasnt there that night, then did they find another Astrkan collared man to question? Did any actual evidence surface from his "believed" witnesses?

I think the stated opinions of most if not all of the senior rank authorities are either just personal hunches or are intentionally misleading.

If the senior officials were trying to be misleading, I'd expect more agreement on if the suspect was identified, who that suspect was, and how many murders were committed.

We don't have most of the police records, so we have no idea what information the police were able to confirm about any of the witnesses, whether they testified at an inquest or not. We do know that police confirmed Joseph Isaacs had an alibi.

[c.d.]

Now it could be said that he just hasn't been found....

but that's just a way of escaping the fact that he can't be found for a reason.

Why are the likes of Hutchison, Schwartz and MJK impossible to find?

A common denominator is they all had false names.

You keep repeating that over and over, R.D. as though it is an established fact. It is not, is simply your opinion.

If you have actual evidence for your claim please make it known.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

It has no real effect on Blotchy Face as a suspect. He was seen at 11:45PM. Wideawake Man was seen at 2:30am. Two different witnesses say they heard a cry of murder around 3:45am. There is no indication that Wideawake Man is anyone's accomplice. He might be the Ripper. He might be an innocent bystander.

The change is that Hutchinson is probably Wideawake Man. If Hutchinson is lying, he has potentially put his neck in a noose to protect the real Wideawake Man, not Blotchy.



It wasn't a suggestion. I provided evidence that a pardon for possible accomplices was being considered a month before the Kelly murder. No doubt the Kelly murder helped tipped the scales towards the offer, but that wasn't based on Wideawake Man.

23 November 1888

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)-asked the Secretary of State for the Home 16 Department, Whether he is prepared, in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)-I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer. In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer.



Thanks for the information on Joseph Isaacs.

"The Whitechapel Murders. The police are still without any clue to the perpetrators of the recent crimes. It is stated that there is no grounds for suspicion against the Polish Jew Joseph Isaacs who was recently arrested in Drury-lane., and whose conduct at the lodging-house near to the scene of the murder in Dorset-street was so suspicious that special inquiries were instituted by the police. The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves that he could not have been connected with the murder.' - 23 December 1888 Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

So Isaacs disappeared around the time of the murder, but it was because he had been arrested. He could not have been Hutchison's Astrakhan Man.

This leaves several possibilities. Was Hutchinson trying to provide an innocent explanation of his presence? Was he looking for 15 minutes of fame? Was he trying to help find Kelly's killer? Any or all of them could be true.

Did Hutchinson actually see Astrakhan Man? If so, was the described similarity to Joseph Isaacs deliberate? Hutchison might have seen a man who looked similar to Isaacs, noted Isaacs' sudden disappearance, and concluded that Isaacs was the Ripper. It's a stronger case than most modern suspectology until Isaacs alibi was found more than a month later.

If Hutchinson lied, that tells us nothing about his motive. He could have held a grudge against Isaacs. He could have been covering for himself or the real Wideawake Man. He could have been looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Any or all of them could be true.

Excellent post


But why did George Hutchinson not exist before or after the murder of Kelly?


If he did, then he would have been traceable in at least 1 document PRIOR to the murders.


Now it could be said that he just hasn't been found....

but that's just a way of escaping the fact that he can't be found for a reason.

Why are the likes of Hutchison, Schwartz and MJK impossible to find?

A common denominator is they all had false names.



Now George Hutchinson may have had honest intent and just tried to help, but that doesn't change the fact nobody knows who he was.

How is that possible?


Schwartz sees Stride's killer
Hutchinson sees Kelly's killer


Not a chance.

The Schwartz story never happened

And Hutchinson's remarkable photographic memory is not believeable.


Even the antecedents of the victim herself seem to all be a pack of lies.


Lots of hiding and concealing going on




At least the man who found Nichols has scores of records to back up his life story. Lechmere existed before and after the murders. ZERO mystery surrounding him.


I stand by what I said...


If Hutchinson and Schwartz haven't been found in ANY records outside of the Ripper murders, then their names were fake.

Regardless of their respective intent: they still lied on some level.

If they didn't, then they would have been found by now.




RD

[Fiver]

And as I noted, there were changes made to the investigators attentions, no longer was Wideawake a possible accomplice, just good ol' Hutchy looking out for Mary, and it would appear they lost interest in even talking to Blotchy Face, judging by the Galloway sighting a few days later.

It has no real effect on Blotchy Face as a suspect. He was seen at 11:45PM. Wideawake Man was seen at 2:30am. Two different witnesses say they heard a cry of murder around 3:45am. There is no indication that Wideawake Man is anyone's accomplice. He might be the Ripper. He might be an innocent bystander.

The change is that Hutchinson is probably Wideawake Man. If Hutchinson is lying, he has potentially put his neck in a noose to protect the real Wideawake Man, not Blotchy.

There was a suggestion that a Pardon had been considered earlier in these crimes, Considering and actually Issuing are not the same thing. Wideawake Man is surely the impetus for the offer being made into law, but as an Accomplice. Not the killer. The killer is likely the last person she is seen with if she went indoors and wasnt seen coming back out...and that was Blotchy.

It wasn't a suggestion. I provided evidence that a pardon for possible accomplices was being considered a month before the Kelly murder. No doubt the Kelly murder helped tipped the scales towards the offer, but that wasn't based on Wideawake Man.

23 November 1888

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)-asked the Secretary of State for the Home 16 Department, Whether he is prepared, in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)-I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer. In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer.

Since Hutchinson gave a description that seems to fit a man staying in the immediate area of Marys lodgings, one who suddenly disappears the night she is killed, I believe the possibility that Hutchinsons statement was intended to direct the police attentions to that man as a suspect. Because I dont believe that his actual motivation was a desire to help the police quickly find his "friends" butcher, I think his information, even if true, was likely useless after such a delay being brought forward.

Thanks for the information on Joseph Isaacs.

"The Whitechapel Murders. The police are still without any clue to the perpetrators of the recent crimes. It is stated that there is no grounds for suspicion against the Polish Jew Joseph Isaacs who was recently arrested in Drury-lane., and whose conduct at the lodging-house near to the scene of the murder in Dorset-street was so suspicious that special inquiries were instituted by the police. The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves that he could not have been connected with the murder.' - 23 December 1888 Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

So Isaacs disappeared around the time of the murder, but it was because he had been arrested. He could not have been Hutchison's Astrakhan Man.

This leaves several possibilities. Was Hutchinson trying to provide an innocent explanation of his presence? Was he looking for 15 minutes of fame? Was he trying to help find Kelly's killer? Any or all of them could be true.

Did Hutchinson actually see Astrakhan Man? If so, was the described similarity to Joseph Isaacs deliberate? Hutchison might have seen a man who looked similar to Isaacs, noted Isaacs' sudden disappearance, and concluded that Isaacs was the Ripper. It's a stronger case than most modern suspectology until Isaacs alibi was found more than a month later.

If Hutchinson lied, that tells us nothing about his motive. He could have held a grudge against Isaacs. He could have been covering for himself or the real Wideawake Man. He could have been looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Any or all of them could be true.

[Sunny Delight]

I think the point you make above indicates that the people arranging the witnesses for the Inquest felt that the James Browns sighting at 12:45 was more credible. Personally I think James Browns sighting is just the same young couple that Fanny saw on the street, and that missing flower arrangement on her jacket may be the indicator of that. Surely she didnt suddenly produce and attach the maidenfern a minute or 2 before being killed.

But then again, this Inquest allowed a woman to take precious court time stating a case for the deceased being her sister when we know for a fact that Liz Stride had already been identified as the victim prior to the Inquests' start. Some of the witnesses were from Liz Strides close circle.

I see a trend with your posts that indicates that you are content to not know or to not attempt to determine the possible truthfulness of certain stories from these investigations. The reality is I think that investigative work involves making determinations based on the best and most complete evidence available. In the known evidence for the case of Liz Strides murder there is not a single bit of evidence that Israel Schwartz's story had any lasting influence on the investigation into her death and that it can stated factually that he was not asked, or had his story submitted in any format, to the formal Inquest based on the investigations to that point. His story was on Sunday. They could easily have asked him to attend the Inquest. Seems they didnt.

Thats conclusive, what isnt conclusive is Why they didnt. I suggest it likely that he wasnt believed or his story could not be corroborated or proven.

Indeed I am quite content not to know. It is impossible for us to determine the truthfulness of accounts taken 136 years ago. We do not know these people. We are not trained detectives(mostly). We do not see their body language when giving evidence. We can't speak to acquaintances who may know them. We can do nothing useful. One of the reasons Abberline's initial belief in Hutchinson is given importance is because Abberline saw him. He looked into his eyes. He interrogated him closely. Watched his body language. He was a very highly regarded Police officer who had been District Inspector in Whitechapel for 15 years prior to his promotion.

It is frankly verging on narcissism to believe that over a century and a quarter later we should not hold his view in high regard. That doesn't mean he was infallible. Indeed he was human like the rest of us. But he forgot more about Whitechapel than the rest of us know about Whitechapel. Other senior investigators were highly regarded as well. Dew says as much in his book. He is glowing about Abberline whereas another senior officer he stated had a sound knowledge of the job. So he wasn't above little jibes if he felt necessary. He couldn't have spoken in a more glowing fashion in regards Abberline. And here we are on an Internet forum arguing years later about such a man. It is unbefitting.

edit: I think I replied to the wrong post. It should have been your Abberline one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So who do you guys think will be the first one to revisit the ole' woodshed first? Will it be Michael or Herlock? Or do you think they will be strolling off in that direction hand in hand?

A word to the wise, boys. A word to the wise.

c.d.

I’m happy to leave it c.d. I just think that it reflects badly on the subject when something that’s obviously true is denied. I’m tired of banging my head against the wall tbh.

[Michael W Richards]

So who do you guys think will be the first one to revisit the ole' woodshed first? Will it be Michael or Herlock? Or do you think they will be strolling off in that direction hand in hand?

A word to the wise, boys. A word to the wise.

c.d.

As I told you upon my return, I dont seek but I also dont shirk. Insulting attitudes dont always bring out the best in other people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said attempting to make, with little success....so you started off wrong and went on from there. And proving that you dont even read the posts that you trash.

Just leave it at this, I said the objective of the Inquest is to arrive at a jury conclusion as to which of the Five Death Categories Strides death falls under. All the Ripper Inquest concluded that Wilful Murder was the probable Category.

No. The object of an inquest is to put on record WHO the victim provably was. WHEN the victim was killed (meaning the date of death and not the ToD). WHERE the victim was killed. And HOW the victim was killed (which meant … what caused the ending of life) Witnesses (whether members of the public or professionals) are used to achieve these 4 aims.

Once those have been established it is only then decided on whether it was murder, manslaughter etc.

Youve been on and on about how thats patently incorrect...when all it takes to brush off your argument and accept mine is to look at the summary of these Inquests and see what was concluded. Wilful Murder means life taken by someone other than the victim themselves, and purposefully done....in case thats an issue for you as well. Her being seen with another person before that cut is made would without a doubt be,.... as I keep saying...(maybe you should actually read and absorb one of these, save me having to repeat things for the slower folks),....germane to a conclusion of Wilful Murder.

The above paragraph is a pointless collection of words.

You can stomp your feet all you want, the proof of my statement is in every summary of every Inquest in the Canonical Group. How is Category. I know interpreting things isnt your strong suit, If you announce you are touching a window,.. then someone examines it and its discovered that it is in fact a door,... your conclusion that its not its a window anyway means you are just vainly sticking by your own error.

It’s little short of remarkable that anyone can keep quoting the ‘wilful murder…’ part as if it’s something that others haven’t noticed. Every inquest comes to this final conclusion. The witness are there to help the Coroner arrive at an answer for the 4 stated aims. This is written, in black and white, in perfectly understandable English in the Coroner’s Act of 1887. Have you somehow found another Coroners Act based in an alternative universe. Then based on those aims being achieved a final conclusion is drawn. A Doctor concluding murder and advising the inquest of that would not have based his opinion on Israel Schwartz.

That Israel Schwartz was a non-vital witness is a fact. And a very obvious one. For years you’ve been seeking to discredit him so that you can make him fit your theory. This is all that anyone needs to know. Bias is behind your posts on this subject. You wish to somehow ‘prove’ that Schwartz was a liar so you are distorting the truth to try a show that he was left out of the Inquest due to the police not believing him. That no one agrees with you will of course not bother you. You’re used to it.