A closer look at George Hutchinson

[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".

[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.

[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

[Sunny Delight]

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

The difference is that with Charles Cross we had an address and place of work. I imagine he would have been in the easier category in regards research. What do we know about Hutchinson apart from his name- or Schwartz except that he was also Hungarian. There is very little to go on for either man. We don't know if Hutchinson was an Englishman and even if he was we have no idea where he was born- where he might have worked. Nothing. Where does it leave us if they were telling the truth? It leaves us with two men who are extremely difficult to find because the information we have is so scant.

[The Rookie Detective]

The difference is that with Charles Cross we had an address and place of work. I imagine he would have been in the easier category in regards research. What do we know about Hutchinson apart from his name- or Schwartz except that he was also Hungarian. There is very little to go on for either man. We don't know if Hutchinson was an Englishman and even if he was we have no idea where he was born- where he might have worked. Nothing. Where does it leave us if they were telling the truth? It leaves us with two men who are extremely difficult to find because the information we have is so scant.

That's a very fair comment and I can't argue with that.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Good point RD.

We can all be guilty of making assumptions so it’s good that these things are guarded against. As you rightly point out, Abberline and the other officers were there on the scene and although they didn’t have the level of training, education and knowledge that modern day police officers have they had the benefit of experience, being on the scene, and their own individual levels of intelligence which has to count for something. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be wrong though or that the odd officer wasn’t lazy or a bit stupid or even corrupt. We should give them at least the benefit of the doubt.

We often see something similar when very senior officers are discussed (Warren, Anderson, Macnaghten etc) How often are they portrayed as a combination of upper class twits and liars, as if that opinion is an across-the-board certainty?

We shouldn’t treat Abberline as infallible but he was clearly no fool.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a very fair comment and I can't argue with that.



RD

Hi RD,

I haven’t read all of the thread that I’ve posted a link to (although I might have read it in the past) but when you say that no one can find Israel Schwartz don’t you mean ‘no one has found THE Israel Schwartz with any level of certainty?’

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-witnesses-evidence/israel-schwartz/28773-israel-schwartz-new-information

[Lewis C]

Hi RD,

I haven’t read all of the thread that I’ve posted a link to (although I might have read it in the past) but when you say that no one can find Israel Schwartz don’t you mean ‘no one has found THE Israel Schwartz with any level of certainty?’

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information

Hi Herlock,

I think that the same is true of Hutchinson. We've found other people named George Hutchinson that could be our George, but none that we can be sure or almost sure were him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think that the same is true of Hutchinson. We've found other people named George Hutchinson that could be our George, but none that we can be sure or almost sure were him.

Hi Lewis,

Agreed. I certainly don’t have an answer but I’ve heard it said before that no one has ‘found’ Schwartz but how could it be confirmed that it was the Schwartz in question. Likewise Hutchinson. I think RD has suggested that false names might have been used? To be honest I can’t see any reason why that couldn’t have been the case. We just don’t know and have no way (thus far) of confirming or rejecting the idea.

[c.d.]

I think RD has suggested that false names might have been used?

R.D. seems to have taken it to a much higher level than mere "suggestion."

To quote his posts:

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.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think RD has suggested that false names might have been used?

R.D. seems to have taken it to a much higher level than mere "suggestion."

To quote his posts:

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.

c.d.

So not a single man called George Hutchinson existed around the time that, or just after or before, our witness appeared? I find that close to impossible to believe.

[Belloc]

So not a single man called George Hutchinson existed around the time that, or just after or before, our witness appeared? I find that close to impossible to believe.

The Pall Mall Gazette, November 14th, 1888, page 9:



St. George's Workhouse, Mint Street, Southwark - Register of Vagrants - Admissions - October 29th-31st, 1885:



George Hutchinson, groom, is the 14th entry on the page.

[The Rookie Detective]

The Pall Mall Gazette, November 14th, 1888, page 9:



St. George's Workhouse, Mint Street, Southwark - Register of Vagrants - Admissions - October 29th-31st, 1885:



George Hutchinson, groom, is the 14th entry on the page.

That's what I love about your posts Belloc


No messing around, no sarcastic wit, no belittling others ideas

Just sheer brilliance.


This document proves that George Hutchinson DID exist...and I'm happy to say PROVED ME WRONG.

I have no quarms with being proved wrong; I thrive on it because it means that there's actual progression taking place.

This document highlights...

Hutchinson was a walk about vagrant who had worked as a Groom. He had no money and was essentially destitute.

I particularly like the far right column that states he undertook "Breaking Stone"

The whole 'stone breaking' thing reminds me of the Pinchin Street torso dumped next to the Stone Breakers yard.

But anyway...

George it seems DID give his real name to the police.


This proves that he DID exist BEFORE the murder of MJK.

His disappearance afterwards may have been to do with the police giving him protection and changing his name...or paying him reward money/exchanging his information for his anonimity

It makes for an interesting point that if George had come back from Romford after having spent all his money...

then where was he heading and/or sleeping the night MJK was killed?


Amazing post Belloc, very fine work indeed.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Pall Mall Gazette, November 14th, 1888, page 9:



St. George's Workhouse, Mint Street, Southwark - Register of Vagrants - Admissions - October 29th-31st, 1885:



George Hutchinson, groom, is the 14th entry on the page.

Cheers Belloc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's what I love about your posts Belloc


No messing around, no sarcastic wit, no belittling others ideas

Just sheer brilliance.


This document proves that George Hutchinson DID exist...and I'm happy to say PROVED ME WRONG.

RD

Hello RD,

I don’t know if this comment was aimed entirely at me or in part at me so I may be jumping the gun here but I’d just like to say that I wasn’t belittling your idea at any point. I accepted the possibility that false names could have been used but, as I’d seen suggestions made in the past, I felt, without being able to provide the evidence, that it was more a case of them both not being conclusively identified.