A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock


Ah no, it certainly WASN'T aimed at you.


It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular; just a generalised comment.


I have far too much respect and admiration for you to even consider directing any negative comments toward you (or anyone else for that matter)


RD

No problem RD. It’s just that when sarcasm is mentioned on here it’s usually about me. And usually with good reason tbh.

[Belloc]

Here’s a comparison of George Hutchinson’s statement to the police with his statement to a press agency.

Statement to Metropolitan Police, Commercial Street on November 12th, 1888	Statement to the reporter of a news agency on November 13th, 1888
U.K. National Archives, catalogue ref. MEPO 3/140	The Pall Mall Gazette, London, November 14th, 1888, page 9
About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Steet,	On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there about two o’clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel-road into Commercial-street. As I passed Thrawl-street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street,
and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly,	and as I went towards Flower and Dean-street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.
	Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish.
and she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence.	She said, “Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?”
I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford	I said, “I cannot, as I am spent out, going down to Romford.”
she said good morning I must go and find some money, she went away towards Thrawl Street.	She then walked on towards Thrawl-street, saying, “I must go and look for some money.”
A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her they both burst out laughing.	The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came towards her, put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear; they both burst out laughing.
I heard her say alright to him, and the man said you will be alright, for what I have told you, he then placed his right hand around her shoulders.	He put his hand again on her shoulder, and they both walked slowly towards me.
He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of a strap round it.	The man carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth.
I stood against the lamp of the [Ten Bell deleted] Queens Head Public House, and watched him.	I walked on to the corner of Fashion Street, near the public house.
They had then come past me and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes.	As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes.
I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.	I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly.
They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.	They walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street.
They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes.	They stood at the corner of Miller’s-court for about three minutes.
He said something to her, she said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss.
She said she had lost her handkerchief, he then pulled his handkerchief a red one out and gave it to her.	Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, “I have lost my handkerchief.” He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly,
They both then went up the court together.	and they went up the court together.
	I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise.
I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not I stood there for about three quarters of an hour, to see if they came out they did not so I went away.	I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.
	One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street.
	When I left the corner of Miller’s-court the clock struck three.
	My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.
	After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning.
Description age about 34 or 35	about thirty-four or thirty-five years of age
height 5 feet 6	The man was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height
complexion pale	dark complexion
dark eyes and eyelashes	dark eyes and bushy eyebrows
[dark deleted] slight moustache, curled up each end	dark moustache turned up at the ends… He had a heavy moustache, curled up
	He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven.
hair dark
very surley [sic] looking
dress long dark coat	He was wearing a long, dark coat,
collar and cuffs trimmed astracan [sic]	trimmed with astrachan [sic]
and a dark jacket under
light waistcoat
dark trousers
dark felt hat turned down in the middle
button boots and gaiters with white buttons	He wore a pair of dark “spats” with light buttons, over button boots,
wore a very thick gold chain	And displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal, with a red stone hanging from it.
white linen collar	a white collar,
black tie with horse shoe pin	With black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin.
respectable appearance
	He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman’s shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves.
walked very sharp	One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly.
Jewish appearance	He looked like a foreigner.
Can be identified	I could swear to the man anywhere.
	I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock


Ah no, it certainly WASN'T aimed at you.


It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular; just a generalised comment.


I have far too much respect and admiration for you to even consider directing any negative comments toward you (or anyone else for that matter)


RD

No problem RD. It’s just that when sarcasm is mentioned on here it’s usually about me. And usually with good reason tbh.

[The Rookie Detective]

Is this a recent discovery? His age is interesting- he would have been 33 by the time he spoke to the Police in 1888, if this is 'our' George Hutchinson.

I would say that because this official document from the Southwark Workhouse in 1885 clearly mentions he's a Groom, he is a vagrant who walks about, his age of 33 in 1888 and the fact that the 2nd page that accompanied this document states he is on his way to "London" (via Southwark)

So we have a name, age, occupation, geographical location and a personal status that would all appear to match; or very closely match what we know about "our" Hutchinson.


Forget George Topping Hutchinson; the guy in this document uploaded by Belloc is the correct man


RD

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Is this a recent discovery? His age is interesting- he would have been 33 by the time he spoke to the Police in 1888, if this is 'our' George Hutchinson.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Hi Herlock


Ah no, it certainly WASN'T aimed at you.


It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular; just a generalised comment.


I have far too much respect and admiration for you to even consider directing any negative comments toward you (or anyone else for that matter)


RD

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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