A closer look at George Hutchinson

[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

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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.

[Lewis C]

Thanks Abby, that makes sense - his friends said that he was somewhere else at the time (assuming Kelly was killed when she is generally thought to have been killed), but sometimes friends lie.

Baron, my problem with Barnett as a Ripper suspect is that I think that the argument that he may have killed the other Ripper victims to scare Kelly away from prostitution seems far-fetched. I think he's a much better suspect for the Kelly murder alone than for being the Ripper, but my belief that Kelly is a Ripper murder also makes me doubt that he killed her. I still consider him a viable Ripper suspect, but one of the weaker of the viable suspects.

BTW, I think the problem with the quote function had something to do with the previous page. The lower posts stretched the page, and I suspect that the 2 issues were related.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I dont see why you would think his alleged sighting of Mary with someone in the middle of the night wouldnt be something that he would want to bring to the attention of the pollice...you know, him being a "friend of Marys", and someone who says he spoke with her that last night...regardless of what time the press were suggesting she was killed... at that time. A friend....yet someone acting like a stalker.

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.

I believe that he came in after the Inquest was over because there was no possibility he would have to be viewed by any of Marys real friends, and exposed as someone they had never seen with Mary. We dont know he knew Mary at all..he says he does. We dont know he saw and talked to Mary that night,.... he says he did. We dont know that he was the man seen by Sarah, yet his story places him under that hat. What we do know is that by giving his statement he changes the probable killer from a street character with a Blotchy face into a toff with very well described ensemble....from a distance seen in the dark.

Hutchinson changes Wideawake from a possible Accomplice..which is certainly why they finally broke down and Saturday offered a Pardon for information from such a person, ...to a benign "friend" of Marys...just keeping an eye on her to be sure she is safe. That, I believe, was the reason he came forward, just like I believe Israel Schwartz came forward to offer a probable suspect, likely antisemitic, OFF the club property. I think Israel did it because he was helping Wess out...and I think Hutchinson did it because...probably...that he was paid to by someone he knew who didnt want the Accomplice idea lingering around any longer. Maybe his pal at the Victorian Home? Barnetts brother?

If Im correct then Hutchinson may well have known who did kill Mary.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson changes Wideawake from a possible Accomplice..

Michael, the 'accomplice' refers to a third-party who had to give assistance to the murderer after the crime was committed. Like a fellow lodger, or family member, or landlord who see's him come in at all hours covered in blood, or cleaning himself up.
Someone saw something, and unless they come forward they will be viewed as an accomplice.

Common sense only tells you that a person stood out across Dorset St. is absolutely no help to a killer inside No.13 - both being out of sight & out of hearing.
I wish people would put a little more thought into this 'accomplice' theory, the reasoning for a person standing so far away is preposterous.

As it happens, Bowyer also saw this strangely dressed man in the court, and Sarah Lewis watched the same couple, Astrachan & Kelly, walk up the court as she approached Millers Court that morning.
Therefore, Hutchinson wasn't making anyone up, two other people saw the same man.

Michael, I think your beliefs are more the result of an active imagination than based on anything factual.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson changes Wideawake from a possible Accomplice..

Michael, the 'accomplice' refers to a third-party who had to give assistance to the murderer after the crime was committed. Like a fellow lodger, or family member, or landlord who see's him come in at all hours covered in blood, or cleaning himself up.
Someone saw something, and unless they come forward they will be viewed as an accomplice.

Common sense only tells you that a person stood out across Dorset St. is absolutely no help to a killer inside No.13 - both being out of sight & out of hearing.
I wish people would put a little more thought into this 'accomplice' theory, the reasoning for a person standing so far away is preposterous.

As for Hutchinson laying a false trail idea - Bowyer also saw this strangely dressed man in the court, and Sarah Lewis watched the same couple, Astrachan & Kelly, walk up the court as she approached Millers Court that morning.
Therefore, Hutchinson wasn't making anyone up, two other people saw the same man.

Michael, I think your beliefs are more the result of an active imagination than based on anything factual.

[mikey559]

I definitely don't believe in an accomplice. Two killers? Nonsense.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, the 'accomplice' refers to a third-party who had to give assistance to the murderer after the crime was committed. Like a fellow lodger, or family member, or landlord who see's him come in at all hours covered in blood, or cleaning himself up.
Someone saw something, and unless they come forward they will be viewed as an accomplice.

Common sense only tells you that a person stood out across Dorset St. is absolutely no help to a killer inside No.13 - both being out of sight & out of hearing.
I wish people would put a little more thought into this 'accomplice' theory, the reasoning for a person standing so far away is preposterous.

As for Hutchinson laying a false trail idea - Bowyer also saw this strangely dressed man in the court, and Sarah Lewis watched the same couple, Astrachan & Kelly, walk up the court as she approached Millers Court that morning.
Therefore, Hutchinson wasn't making anyone up, two other people saw the same man.

Michael, I think your beliefs are more the result of an active imagination than based on anything factual.

I see you feel strongly enough about this that you posted it twice Wick. You seem to want me to buy your interpretations of terminologies and their practices, you dont have to. Ive read books and lived a fairly long time thus far. If you spend a little time reviewing the idea with some research instead of mostly working on rebuttal, you would be looking at the proposition as whole. Wideawake was a known on Friday into Saturday, and as a possible lookout for people in the courtyard, well positioned. I dont know if he was an accomplice, but his presence there cannot be denied, nor that he had a reason for being there. If you look back you'll note the explanation.., "By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."


There is no need to be involved in the commission of the crime, just knowledge of the criminals' intent as relates to the crime. One of your witnesses that saw this same man...Sarah... mentions a young couple, no description, no mention the woman was Mary..whom she would know by sight being related to people in that courtyard. So...your claim that Hutch is validated by that witness is incorrect. As for Bowyer, he may have seen a suspect, but that doesnt equate to Hutch or Sarahs identifications...the second really is hardly an ID of anything.

Back on the Accomplica pardon, based on the suggestion of this method of getting information going back to the first murders, the only reason for them to have gone this route now is the fact that they have a witness who saw someone suspicious in the immediate area at roughly the same time as the murder. No other Canonical has that evidence present. Other than perhaps Israels...

[Wickerman]

I see you feel strongly enough about this that you posted it twice Wick. You seem to want me to buy your interpretations of terminologies and their practices, you dont have to. Ive read books and lived a fairly long time thus far. If you spend a little time reviewing the idea with some research instead of mostly working on rebuttal, you would be looking at the proposition as whole. Wideawake was a known on Friday into Saturday, and as a possible lookout for people in the courtyard, well positioned. I dont know if he was an accomplice, but his presence there cannot be denied, nor that he had a reason for being there. If you look back you'll note the explanation.., "By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."

Right, which suggests they do not mean someone playing an active role during the commission of the crime. As would be the case of someone suggested to be on lookout.

There is no need to be involved in the commission of the crime, just knowledge of the criminals' intent as relates to the crime. One of your witnesses that saw this same man...Sarah... mentions a young couple, no description, no mention the woman was Mary..whom she would know by sight .....

Once again you are avoiding the facts of the case.
Sarah Lewis told the court she did not know Mary Kelly by sight, as she was merely a visitor, not a resident.

As for Bowyer, he may have seen a suspect, but that doesnt equate to Hutch or Sarahs identifications...the second really is hardly an ID of anything.

The only man seen by Bowyer at 3:00 am would be Astrachan, Hutchinson may have been in the court earlier, and the Britannia-man shortly after. So, Astrachan is the only one who could have been there on present knowledge.

[Fiver]

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.

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood. It would be the police creating an alibi for the killer. This is a point against Hutchinson being the Ripper.

[The Rookie Detective]

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood. It would be the police creating an alibi for the killer. This is a point against Hutchinson being the Ripper.

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.

It's a misconception to think that all killers want to get away from the crime and be as far removed as possible.
Quite the opposite applies, 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.

Of course, many killers do indeed want to get away from the crime and avoid being caught.

But IMO Jack doesn't fit into that bracket.

What's the point of a serial killer who is never identified?

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.

Jack's biggest success was also his biggest failure. He succeeded in becoming arguably the most notorious killer in history, but nobody knew who he was, and so he failed to achieve what many other Psychopathic serial killers have; being known.


RD

[Michael W Richards]

Right, which suggests they do not mean someone playing an active role during the commission of the crime. As would be the case of someone suggested to be on lookout.


Once again you are avoiding the facts of the case.
Sarah Lewis told the court she did not know Mary Kelly by sight, as she was merely a visitor, not a resident.


The only man seen by Bowyer at 3:00 am would be Astrachan, Hutchinson may have been in the court earlier, and the Britannia-man shortly after. So, Astrachan is the only one who could have been there on present knowledge.

What do you think Aiding and/or Abetting means? It means working in tandem, hence, accomplice. Not sure why you would imagine they would just arbitrarily choose to reverse what had been the policy since the first Ripper kill, when its abundantly clear that they had a witness see someone hanging around that court entrance. The best possible spot for a lookout, and a brief whistle away from the courtyard. He sees someone enter..he whistles. Doesnt mean the killer has the ability to get out, just to get ready. 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.

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?

[Mark J D]

Virtually all killers would be ecstatic that the police put the time of death long after the killer was in the neighborhood.

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

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.

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.

Here is a possible spanner in your machinery.

There are two reports of a carman named Thompson, living at No. 29 over the previous two weeks, going to work at this earlier hour. One specifically claims 'Thompson left the house as early as 3.50 a.m.' on the morning of the murder. (The Times, 11 September, p. 6)