What's happened to George?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Once over, George was often discussed. These days, he's been reduced to a mere after-thought in a 100 page thread that has nothing to do with him.

By his own admission, George was at the crime scene and stalking Mary (the majority of sexual serial murderers stalk their victims).

George doesn't give a plausible explanation for doing that.

Of the known suspects, I'd suggest George is at least as good as most.

Is it time for another 'round the houses on George?

[Wickerman]

I would have thought there was enough threads on G. H. to keep any student busy, well into retirement...


I've always assumed the role of defense council for G.H. - and given all the hooting n hollering over the years no-one has yet produced one instance where he was found out in telling a lie.
Yet, that is the most common accusation against him, and, for all those who do have their own pet theories on what possible role G.H. could have played. There is no consensus on whatever 'they' (collectively) think he may have lied about.

The basic grounds for accusing Hutchinson of anything was based on a false press account by the Star, suggesting his story had been "discredited", when only four days later (19th) we read (in the Echo) the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story, along side that of Mary Cox, and that they are split between two comparable suspects.
Therefore, the Star's "discredted story is soon itself "discredited" by a competing newspaper.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would have thought there was enough threads on G. H. to keep any student busy, well into retirement...


I've always assumed the role of defense council for G.H. - and given all the hooting n hollering over the years no-one has yet produced one instance where he was found out in telling a lie.
Yet, that is the most common accusation against him, and, for all those who do have their own pet theories on what possible role G.H. could have played. There is no consensus on whatever 'they' (collectively) think he may have lied about.

The basic grounds for accusing Hutchinson of anything was based on a false press account by the Star, suggesting his story had been "discredited", when only four days later (19th) we read (in the Echo) the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story, along side that of Mary Cox, and that they are split between two comparable suspects.
Therefore, the Star's "discredted story is soon itself "discredited" by a competing newspaper.

Does it matter who believed him and who didn't?

That's a judgement call as opposed to a science, and of course the police were compelled to follow a potential lead.

I'd argue that we're in a better position to assess George's statement: detached from the case, not under pressure during an investigation, not compelled to follow a potential lead; able to pour over George's statement at our leisure whereas the police had a lot on their plate.

There is no proof that George was lying, on the other hand George's statement wasn't corroborated by anybody. That's a neutral situation in terms of whether or not George can be taken at face value.

In fact, Sarah Lewis's statement contradicts George's statement in terms of where George was when Sarah passed. In the event we have somebody who claims to have talked with Mary and watched Mary around the time Mary was murdered, and somebody else contradicts where he was during that watching period; then I reckon an investigating officer could ask: was he in the room? The majority of sexual serial murderers stalk their victims.

Let's have a look at George's statement:

About 2.00am, 9, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly and she said to me, 'Hutchinson, will you lend me Sixpence', I said, 'I can't , I've spent all my money going down to Romford', she said, 'Good morning, I must go and find some money'. She went away towards Thrawl Street, a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her, 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 also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street, I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 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. They both then went up the court together. 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.

Leaving Puss in Boots wandering 'round Dorset Street at half two in the morning and all of the drama aside, what did George say here, bearing in mind an innocent George had no idea a murder was about to take place:

A man and a woman passed him. They went to the woman's room. George watched them. George went to the court and stood there for three quarters of an hour specifically to 'see if they came out'.

What would George's motive be for doing that? Came out for what? What was he going to do then?

[Wickerman]

Does it matter who believed him and who didn't?

That's a judgement call as opposed to a science, and of course the police were compelled to follow a potential lead.

I'd argue that we're in a better position to assess George's statement: detached from the case, not under pressure during an investigation, not compelled to follow a potential lead; able to pour over George's statement at our leisure whereas the police had a lot on their plate.

There is no proof that George was lying, on the other hand George's statement wasn't corroborated by anybody. That's a neutral situation in terms of whether or not George can be taken at face value.

No argument there, but I disagree with some of what you write below.

In fact, Sarah Lewis's statement contradicts George's statement in terms of where George was when Sarah passed. In the event we have somebody who claims to have talked with Mary and watched Mary around the time Mary was murdered, and somebody else contradicts where he was during that watching period; then I reckon an investigating officer could ask: was he in the room? The majority of sexual serial murderers stalk their victims.

I don't know about a majority, I'd agree some do, and some don't. But where does that leave us, whether something is 50/50, or 60/40, or even 70/30, it doesn't help us with a suspect. 30% is still significant enough, but it is presented as unlikely, or less likely than 70%, that still doesn't help.

Let's have a look at George's statement:

About 2.00am, 9, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly and she said to me, 'Hutchinson, will you lend me Sixpence', I said, 'I can't , I've spent all my money going down to Romford', she said, 'Good morning, I must go and find some money'. She went away towards Thrawl Street, a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her, 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 also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street, I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 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. They both then went up the court together. 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.

Leaving Puss in Boots wandering 'round Dorset Street at half two in the morning and all of the drama aside, what did George say here, bearing in mind an innocent George had no idea a murder was about to take place:

A man and a woman passed him. They went to the woman's room. George watched them. George went to the court and stood there for three quarters of an hour specifically to 'see if they came out'.

What would George's motive be for doing that? Came out for what? What was he going to do then?

First off, there are some facts about the population of Whitechapel that to me act as caveats.
Accepting a decent number of the population were just poor but honest workers striving to make a living. Some might have stolen a loaf of bread, or some fruit, or clothing at one time or another. Some may be wanted for rent arrears, others may know & associate with small time crooks, pick-pockets & confidence tricksters. Some may not have a buddy-buddy friendship with the police because of some previous altercation, an arrest of a family member, or some drunken brawl, etc.
So, if some witness doesn't go running to the police it could well be due to any of the reason's listed above, not because the witness is acting suspicious, or not being trustworthy, or because he has something to hide about this murder.

I get the feeling that some members just need to understand the area we are dealing with. It could be said to be full of liars, confidence tricksters, and petty thieves. Any one of these types could be a witness for a murder. Just because they may have been dishonest at one time, or are possibly being sought by police for rent arrears, doesn't mean they must be suspicious if they didn't run to police straight away.
We do have accounts where the public in general did not trust the police, many were foreigners and in their home country the police were crooked, but we also read the public assisted the police as best they could in house-to-house enquiries.
Both scenario's can exist at the same time, they can help police as best they can, and still call them names behind their backs - if that isn't a typical example of human nature, I don't know what is.

Finally, if an unemployed laborer is standing around with nothing to do & nowhere to go, it wasn't suspicious, it was perfectly normal for the East End.

Now, to answer your question - why would Hutchinson stand opposite Millers Court for as long as he said?
- He knew Mary and was hoping she might treat him after her client has left?
- He was concerned that something was amiss, not specifically to do with the current murders, but for her welfare as a friend? (she didn't normally associate with toffs).
- He was considering mugging the fancy stranger as he left the court?
- He was just bored and had nothing better to do?

[caz]

I tend to put him in the same category as Lechmere: a witness who came forward voluntarily with information connected with just one of the murder victims.

I see it no more likely that Hutch murdered Kelly than Lechmere murdered Nichols.

One is accused of 'stalking' Kelly before she is found dead, while the other is accused of being 'found' standing over the dead body of Nichols.

There is no hard evidence for favouring one scenario over the other, and they can't both have merit, so it has to come down to a subjective hunch for anyone who strongly suspects one but believes the other was entirely innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

I tend to put him in the same category as Lechmere: a witness who came forward voluntarily with information connected with just one of the murder victims.

I see it no more likely that Hutch murdered Kelly than Lechmere murdered Nichols.

One is accused of 'stalking' Kelly before she is found dead, while the other is accused of being 'found' standing over the dead body of Nichols.

There is no hard evidence for favouring one scenario over the other, and they can't both have merit, so it has to come down to a subjective hunch for anyone who strongly suspects one but believes the other was entirely innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

100% agree.

I must confess that I am fascinated with the police and press versus the Jewish community angle in all of this. The pursuit by both the press and police to find a Jewish killer does not actually seem to be based on anything factual. Of course, there might be evidence that is lost to time that might suggest it, but Hutch's finger-pointing of the killer being a Jew (implied, not explicit), the whole leather apron debacle, Israel Schwartz the witness that never existed, and the GSG, make me wonder if the Jews were the men trying to be blamed for nothing.

Hutch's statement a number of days after the fact and the detail he provided does smack of someone trying to push the police down a specific path, but the motive may not have been deception by a murderer, but good old-fashioned Xenophobia. Possibly prompted. I think most people probably agree that Hutchison's statement does not sit right, but does that make him Jack?

[richardnunweek]

Hi
If GH received the sum of five guineas for his assistance , the police obviously treated him seriously/[ Like myself] unfortunately the man he saw with Kelly could never be traced , Through out his life, he would often say, he knew one of the victims and was interviewed . but no more sinister then this .

[Abby Normal]

Once over, George was often discussed. These days, he's been reduced to a mere after-thought in a 100 page thread that has nothing to do with him.

By his own admission, George was at the crime scene and stalking Mary (the majority of sexual serial murderers stalk their victims).

George doesn't give a plausible explanation for doing that.

Of the known suspects, I'd suggest George is at least as good as most.

Is it time for another 'round the houses on George?

absolutely.
he was stalking mary the night of her murder.
he came up with an unbelievable detailed description of a suspect.
he waited until just after the inquest ended to come forward.
he has no alibi by his own admission.
he changed his story from what he told police to what he told the press, now saying he stood outside her window, so now indicating he knew exactly where she lived.
the only two pieces of evidence directly implicating a jew is the gsg and hutches jewish aman. coincidence?

Imho hutch is at the very least a lying attention seeker and at best, the ripper. hes always been in my top three.

[Wickerman]

There is no proof that George was lying, on the other hand George's statement wasn't corroborated by anybody....

Here, I take issue with that above, - Sarah Lewis does corroborate a part of what Hutchinson claimed.

Two problems surface with Lewis, although she saw a couple walking down Dorset St., she did not know Mary by sight, and she failed to give a description of the man Kelly was with, either because she was not close enough, or could not recall his appearance.

Lewis, in her statement to police, and in court, and in the press coverage, says she only noticed the man standing opposite Millers Court when she reached the court.
She doesn't say he was standing there before she arrived, but she also doesn't say she noticed him walking along on the south side of Dorset St. with her.
It must have been one or the other, but all we know is as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite.
However, prior to that she had walked west along Dorset St. following behind a couple, they were some distance ahead, but she doesn't say how much. Unfortunately, the court record contributes little to this part of her story. Happily, the press were more diligent with regard to detail.

Lewis told the court the woman wore no hat, and was the worse for drink, she saw them pass up the court.
As she reached the court, it was only then that she noticed a man standing opposite, looking up the court.
Lewis then walked up the court and commented that there was no-one in the court. Which appears to suggest the couple she saw had not entered the court for a bit of hanky-panky, but must have gone indoors into one of the rooms.

Various newspapers provided a little detail that we must put together to construct her story.
Assuming we accept the man standing opposite was Hutchinson, then he watched Kelly & Astrachan walk towards Millers Court - so did Sarah Lewis, only she didn't know the woman was Mary Kelly.
Hutch watched the couple go up the court - so did Lewis.
Hutch said the couple went in to Kelly's room - Lewis said there was no couple in the court when she got there, meaning whoever she saw went indoors.
Hutch had already described Mary as 'spreeish', so not quite drunk, but not sober either - Lewis said the woman was 'the worse for drink'.

So whether we choose to believe the appearance of the man was as Hutchinson described, he certainly did exist, and Lewis saw him with Kelly, or from her point, she saw a man & woman being watched by a man standing opposite.
Lewis did not know any of the people by sight or by name, she just saw figures in the night doing what Hutchinson said.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't know about a majority, I'd agree some do, and some don't. But where does that leave us, whether something is 50/50, or 60/40, or even 70/30, it doesn't help us with a suspect. 30% is still significant enough, but it is presented as unlikely, or less likely than 70%, that still doesn't help.

There was a study undertaken in the United States, and of 55 known/apprehended serial killers 65% of them stalked their victims. These findings were published in the journal Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.

That knowledge helps.

The reason why these types of studies are undertaken is in order to aid crime prevention and investigation by means of furthering the understanding of the pattern of behaviour underpinning these types of crimes.

They look at commonalities in background and behaviour, such as abuse and neglect in the formative years, and the reason they do that is because in the event they can find a high incidence of behaviour and traits, then you're one step closer to understanding what makes these people tick.

In the event you have a finding that 2 out of 3 male serial killers stalk their victims, then you have an understanding that the WM probably stalked his victims.

Finally, if an unemployed laborer is standing around with nothing to do & nowhere to go, it wasn't suspicious, it was perfectly normal for the East End.

Now, to answer your question - why would Hutchinson stand opposite Millers Court for as long as he said?
- He knew Mary and was hoping she might treat him after her client has left?
- He was concerned that something was amiss, not specifically to do with the current murders, but for her welfare as a friend? (she didn't normally associate with toffs).
- He was considering mugging the fancy stranger as he left the court?
- He was just bored and had nothing better to do?

George presented himself as a benevolent keeper of the poor handing out a sixpence here and there. In 1888, a labourer's daily wage probably wasn't as much as sixpence by the way. According to George, the locals saw George as someone who would work for the day and then just give it to somebody who needed it more. George was a generous man, according to George that is. George wasn't presenting himself as somebody looking 'for a treat'. On the contrary, George was the treater.

Furthermore, in George's own words, he wasn't bored. He was undertaking a vigil with the express purpose of 'seeing them come out'.

Something was amiss? Then why stand around for three quarters of an hour and then leave without 'seeing them come out'. What did he achieve in terms of helping his 'friend' by doing that?

Considering mugging the stranger? Then you're opening the door for George not telling all that he knew, and the motive for not telling all that he knew might not have been to 'mug the stranger'.

[caz]

If I may say so, Fleetwood, your argument would have had more merit if Hutch had not come forward voluntarily as a witness, but had been brought to police attention as a potential suspect and been questioned to see if he could be ruled out.

The vast majority of killers do their level best not to be seen lurking near their next crime scene, and also do whatever they can to avoid drawing attention to themselves afterwards. So of those '55 known/apprehended serial killers', of whom 65% stalked their victims, how many did 'a Hutch' afterwards, by going freely to the police and talking equally freely to the newspapers?

As with Lechmere, are we expected to believe that Hutch did his best to incriminate himself with his own words and actions, and the police at the time were all half asleep?

Love,

Caz
X

[New Waterloo]

If we are to believe George then he tells us something very important. If the man he describes was intending to kill Kelly then he is wearing totally the wrong clothes. The blood must have been considerable. Would a man intending such a crime come dressed like that. No. He is not the murderer OR he was carrying an overall suit to change into and the burn in the fire place. Re dress and leave. If no evidence in the fireplace doesn't sound like our man

NW

[Fleetwood Mac]

Lewis, in her statement to police, and in court, and in the press coverage, says she only noticed the man standing opposite Millers Court when she reached the court.

I probably wasn't clear on what I meant by contradicted.

I meant this part as reported in The Times:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

According to Sarah Lewis, Sarah walked into Miller's Court at a time when George claimed to be 'stood there' undertaking his 45 minute vigil. George tells us she didn't.

Where was he?

[Fleetwood Mac]

If I may say so, Fleetwood, your argument would have had more merit if Hutch had not come forward voluntarily as a witness

No bother, Caz.

I agree, although I'm not putting forward an argument for a suspect in the sense that generally means.

George's motive for his actions seems out of kilter and that's the main discussion point. The rest of is it just bits and pieces of conversation starters.

When I said as good a suspect as most, that was in the context of no suspect having any piece of substantial evidence against them, maybe with the exception of one (but I'm not as convinced as some others on that one either).

So, even in the event everyone agrees that George's motive is suspect (which isn't going to happen), then it's not going any further than that given a lack of further information on George.

I think his statement is suspect, not because of his detailed description of the man, but because of the motive he gives to explain his actions.

[Wickerman]

I probably wasn't clear on what I meant by contradicted.

I meant this part as reported in The Times:

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

According to Sarah Lewis, Sarah walked into Miller's Court at a time when George claimed to be 'stood there' undertaking his 45 minute vigil. George tells us she didn't.

Where was he?

Ok, thanks.

The 19th century was a man's world, women were not even citizens. You might not believe this but even in a country ruled by a woman, the legal standing of a female was nothing more than a man's possession.
When at home, the father was in charge, if the father dies, the eldest male son was the man of the house. A woman was given away by the head male, to another male (in marriage). Depending on what was being bought, any purchase of something like property would require a male signatory.

The point I am making is, we already know the streets of Whitechapel were busy at all hours of day and night with women, back and forth, some going to market, midwives, nurses at the Hospital, cleaners, streetwalkers, hawkers, etc., but from a man's point of view, if one man did not see another man then there was no-one around.
It doesn't matter how many women he saw, they are only background noise. Of course Hutch saw females in the street, but they didn't exist, and besides the whole point of Hutchinson's remark, and most of the questions posed to him was to clarify if he saw another male at all that night, because the suspect is obviously a male. No-one cares how many women came up or down Dorset St.

When I explained this some years ago there was no comment, it's like, either, everyone understood, or no-one understood what I was saying.
I can guess the most likely answer, I also noticed members were not even aware that a respectable young woman would not dare go out at night without a hat - it was a sure sign of a streetwalker. Only pre-puberty girls & old women were allowed by society to go without a hat at night. No-one seemed to believe that either.
I had to wonder, am I the only one who actually reads up on Victorian society?