A closer look at George Hutchinson

[The Rookie Detective]

Going back to Hutchinson...


Imagine he came forward within 24 hours of the murder...


....would he have then been called to the inquest?


Also, speaking of Hutchinson (and Schwartz)... if not one single researcher and historian can find either man after all this time; then would it be logical to conclude that...

...after they gave statements...

nobody could find them either?


Hutchinson (and Schwartz) appear to only exist in the context of the Ripper case, and outside of that they both dissappear from ALL records.


Not only that...but neither man can be found BEFORE the murder series either!.


There should be some documentation somewhere; a census return, a birth certificate, electoral rolls etc... that should flag up at least ONE of the 2 men.


But they are both Ghosts


Now we could use the excuse that we just don't know how to find them, but they're still there.

Absolute nonsense.


Someone out of all the thousands and thousands of people who have researched this case since 1888 MUST have found Hutchinson and Schwartz prior to the murders by now...but still...nothing.


There's your reason why neither Hutchinson or Schwartz were called to the inquest...

They both vanished.

And why?

Well false names for both almost certainly.


Of course, if you're looking for 2 men; master and apprentice, one dark haired Jewish look and the other fair moustache and grey eyes; then perhaps Hutchinson and Schwartz were BOTH involved with the murders.


Having fun with their "little games"


I repeat, If neither man has been found after all this time; then the police at the time couldn't find them either.

At some point the penny must have dropped for Abberley...he let Hutchinson go after believing his statement...and then when he couldn't find him...he must have realised he had been duped...

Kaiser Sosa style


Hence why the Inquest was a rushed botch job.


Did the Ripper sign off after killing Kelly and escape abroad, after coming forward as Hutchinson and playing the part of the helpful samaritan...and then just disappearing before anyone realised the Ripper had just played them?


Now that's the mark of a true psychopath


Conjecture of course, but it does explain a hell of a lot.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mary Malcolm didn’t appear to be believed by Baxter and yet she testified.

[c.d.]

Fanny didnt actually see squat, so yes, she had no place at the Inquest. But Israel claimed to see the victim, and an assailant, in a tussle just before she is killed. Surely you can see where one story isnt relevant and one is.

So it seems that it has been demonstrated that a witness can be believed by Abberline and not appear at the Inquest and that there is a valid reason for that.

[Sunny Delight]

Fanny didnt actually see squat, so yes, she had no place at the Inquest. But Israel claimed to see the victim, and an assailant, in a tussle just before she is killed. Surely you can see where one story isnt relevant and one is.

To be fair Michael James Brown was called to the Inquest so there appears an anomaly in regards Schwartz not being called. There are a myriad of possible reasons for this as is well documented. We will never know now at this juncture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One last time...just read the question put to the jury in each case at the end of the Inquest. Its exactly the reason, as I stated, that the Inquest was held. And please, leave me alone for heaven sake. I have very little time to deal with the ignorance and denial. And Id like to spend my time here without have to answer insulting spews. I know you figure you'll just push me a little further until I insult you, then complain yet again that Mike was personal and nasty to you...like youve done several times, havent you?

But thats in the past. I dont see the need to point out anything in addition to your own words. Clearly combative, and with zero value in it for anyone but you. When Trump is shown to be incorrect he just insults the person who corrected him. Familiar?

Anyway, direct your "arguments" at someone with a whole bunch of time to waste please, Im not that person.

I’ll ignore your accusation because it’s a lie. And cut the ‘victim’ tactic.

You are wrong. Intentionally and deliberately so. As usual.

[Michael W Richards]

We know that it has to be decided at the end whether it was murder or manslaughter etc. Your repeating of this is pointless. What I’ve showed you in black and white is the Coroner’s Act itself Michael. Documentary proof of what I’m saying and yet you are still wriggling around trying to oppose this. This is a direct quote from the Act Michael. How can you have the nerve to dispute it:

“who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder.”

So the aim of an inquest is 1) who was killed, 2) how they were killed, 3) when they were killed, 4) where they were killed. And THEN a final summing up had to be made by either naming a suspect or using the murder/manslaughter by person or persons unknown part.

You are trying to twist the facts by claiming that final ‘person or persons..’ part is the same as the ‘how they were killed part.’ It is clearly not.

Everyone with eyes can see this and I realise that others find this argument tedious ( I do too) and that they want to avoid contentious issues but I’m sorry….facts are facts…and any attempt at manipulating them to suit a theory should be called out strongly. We can be wrong on opinions but not on facts.

One last time...just read the question put to the jury in each case at the end of the Inquest. Its exactly the reason, as I stated, that the Inquest was held. And please, leave me alone for heaven sake. I have very little time to deal with the ignorance and denial. And Id like to spend my time here without have to answer insulting spews. I know you figure you'll just push me a little further until I insult you, then complain yet again that Mike was personal and nasty to you...like youve done several times, havent you?

But thats in the past. I dont see the need to point out anything in addition to your own words. Clearly combative, and with zero value in it for anyone but you. When Trump is shown to be incorrect he just insults the person who corrected him. Familiar?

Anyway, direct your "arguments" at someone with a whole bunch of time to waste please, Im not that person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fanny didnt actually see squat, so yes, she had no place at the Inquest. But Israel claimed to see the victim, and an assailant, in a tussle just before she is killed. Surely you can see where one story isnt relevant and one is.

It’s not about who saw her. It’s about what they can contribute to the aims of the Inquest. Schwartz could contribute nothing. Zilch. Not a jot. He didn’t know her name, he didn’t see her being killed and he wasn’t a doctor.

[Michael W Richards]

As has been said, enough trying to get others up to speed in general....as to the specific thread issue, is there anyone who contests that Hutchinsons statement affected how Wideawake Hat man was being perceived? Hard to argue with, although some will anyway. In addition, does Hutchinsons statement provide the Police with a suspect that is seen with Mary after she was seen with Blotchy? Of course it does.

Is it possible then that Hutchinson actually give his statement in order that he accomplish those 2 things? Cannot be dis-proven at this point in time.
Is it possible that Hutchinson would be aware that an eyewitness statement containing a very detailed description of a possible suspect would be very helpful to any investigation into the murder? I would think thats reasonable.
Is it possible that Hutchinson was never there and sometime over the weekend was convinced to come forward with the story he gave? Possible, yes.
Is it possible that Hutchinson was actually the Wideawake Hat Man Sarah saw, and after hearing that the police suspected that very man might be an accomplice in this murder, he came in Monday night to state it was him and he was only looking out for Mary, and not a lookout or accomplice? Possible. But less so because he could have just said that...he was Wideawake Hat Man. But he doesnt. He places himself where Wideawake Hat was seen ,and at the time he was seen, and lets inference do the rest.

Anyone who tells you that Hutchinson is a valid witness because Abberline said he believed him is just reaching for some validity for their own opinion. Very little about Hutch and his story is vetted and accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ive showed you what the jury was tasked with answering, what choices there were, and how they answered. And that is what they were looking for. Was it Natural Causes, Suicide, Accident, Homicide or Undetermined. In each case the determination was Wilful Murder.

You seem to believe your interpretation of what is to be determined is accurate, despite seeing in plain English what the jury was specifically asked to answer in every single case of the alledged Ripper murders. What they determined is that she was Murdered, Wilfully. You not believing a witnesssed assault on the victim just before what they felt was her murder wouldnt be relevant. To argue against what is clearly present isnt productive. At all. But thats not your thing is it? Producing possible answers. You just think you know what isnt correct, based on your posts.

We know that it has to be decided at the end whether it was murder or manslaughter etc. Your repeating of this is pointless. What I’ve showed you in black and white is the Coroner’s Act itself Michael. Documentary proof of what I’m saying and yet you are still wriggling around trying to oppose this. This is a direct quote from the Act Michael. How can you have the nerve to dispute it:

“who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder.”

So the aim of an inquest is 1) who was killed, 2) how they were killed, 3) when they were killed, 4) where they were killed. And THEN a final summing up had to be made by either naming a suspect or using the murder/manslaughter by person or persons unknown part.

You are trying to twist the facts by claiming that final ‘person or persons..’ part is the same as the ‘how they were killed part.’ It is clearly not.

Everyone with eyes can see this and I realise that others find this argument tedious ( I do too) and that they want to avoid contentious issues but I’m sorry….facts are facts…and any attempt at manipulating them to suit a theory should be called out strongly. We can be wrong on opinions but not on facts.

[Michael W Richards]

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

Can Fanny Mortimer be added to that list?

c.d.

Fanny didnt actually see squat, so yes, she had no place at the Inquest. But Israel claimed to see the victim, and an assailant, in a tussle just before she is killed. Surely you can see where one story isnt relevant and one is.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive showed you what the jury was tasked with answering, what choices there were, and how they answered. And that is what they were looking for. Was it Natural Causes, Suicide, Accident, Homicide or Undetermined. In each case the determination was Wilful Murder.

You seem to believe your interpretation of what is to be determined is accurate, despite seeing in plain English what the jury was specifically asked to answer in every single case of the alledged Ripper murders. What they determined is that she was Murdered, Wilfully. You not believing a witnesssed assault on the victim just before what they felt was her murder wouldnt be relevant. To argue against what is clearly present isnt productive. At all. But thats not your thing is it? Producing possible answers. You just think you know what isnt correct, based on your posts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I cited the exact wording of the conclusions of all Ripper Inquests. Verbatim. The question to be determined was How the victim died categorically. The evidence presented to the jury allows them to consider how to categorize that death, and Schwartz's would have been relevant. I guess its simply that you can lead a horse to water but you cant stop it from sh***ing all over itself.

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

And I explained to you as simply as is humanly possible how you are completely and utterly wrong. Not even close to being correct. The HOW is the method. It is what caused the death. Which would be decided by the Doctor. Read the bloody Act!! The part about murder or manslaughter is an addition at the end. AFTER the ‘how’ part. I can’t believe that you actually quoted from the inquests a line that’s in every single inquest ever. Of course the Coroner ends by deciding whether it was murder or not. For Christ’s sake.

If the HOW part meant ‘murder or manslaughter’ then where in the Act does it mentioned finding out what medically caused the death? It doesn’t. There’s nowhere else. So the HOW has to mean what physically caused the death.

Just read it.

[c.d.]

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

Can Fanny Mortimer be added to that list?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You’re just typing words that have no basis in fact.

This isn’t about your ‘opinion.’ It’s the Coroners Act. I give up. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your ‘conclusion’ is meaningless and based solely on your desire to denigrate Schwartz to bolster your theory.

Move on…it’s a Hutchinson thread.

I cited the exact wording of the conclusions of all Ripper Inquests. Verbatim. The question to be determined was How the victim died categorically. The evidence presented to the jury allows them to consider how to categorize that death, and Schwartz's would have been relevant. I guess its simply that you can lead a horse to water but you cant stop it from sh***ing all over itself.

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"The manner of death refers to how the person died. Universally, there are only five categories or manners of death classifications: natural, accident, homicide, suicide, or undetermined. The cause of death refers to why the person died, and it is the event that actually caused the individual’s death, such as a gunshot wound of head. There are many causes of death. Several are discussed with suggested unique investigation techniques depending on the circumstances of death and key points to remember about each type: asphyxia, blunt trauma, drowning, hanging, strangulation, smothering, gunshot wounds, and others."

Pollys Inquest: "The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Annies Inquest: "A verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown was then entered."
Liz's Inquest: "The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Kates Inquest: "He [Coroner] presumed that the jury would return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, and then the police could freely pursue their inquiries and follow up any clue they might obtain."
Marys Inquest: "The Foreman: Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. "

The jury was to decide which death "category" the evidence presented to them met. It is not the medical examiners job to determine the "category", it is the Jury's in these cases.

The statement of Israel Schwartz,... given with ample time to have him appear at the Inquest to present his statement, or to transcribe the statement for submission, ...concerns the victim and an assailant having a violent exchange minutes before her throat is cut, at that same location. The presentation of that evidence would surely lend credence to a consideration of a continued assault culminating in lethal violence. Israel would establish that she was seen in the presence of some one attacking her just before being cut. It would effectively rule out a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal category. It is therefore very germane to the question that the jury was assembled to answer.

The fact that it is completely absent from any records concerning that Inquest, and having no mention of a witness statement being withheld for further investigation, leads me to conclude that they decided his statement was not sufficiently authenticated to enter as evidence.

In my words, they didnt believe it as presented.

You’re just typing words that have no basis in fact.

This isn’t about your ‘opinion.’ It’s the Coroners Act. I give up. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your ‘conclusion’ is meaningless and based solely on your desire to denigrate Schwartz to bolster your theory.

Move on…it’s a Hutchinson thread.