What's happened to George?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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?

I agree that it is extremely unusual for a murderer to go to the police voluntarily and give a statement.

That said, murderers involve themselves in the investigation in some way probably more than is imagined, including: being part of a search for a body, or giving a statement to the press, or taunting the police with letters, socialising with policemen/women and so on.

This article is from a retired New York police commander (homicide), who describes himself as: an expert in the sphere of homicide investigation, and since retiring he has authored books and worked as a consultant/trainer on such matters. In this article he it talking of sexual related serial murder, of which he states he has vast experience.

Articles (practicalhomicide.com)

In the article he states this:

Many serial killers have a fascination for police procedure. Some have even worked as police officers, reserve officers, or security guards. They use this experience to avoid detection. They have been known to frequent police hangouts and eavesdrop on police conversations during a case. They may even interject themselves into the investigation or offer to assist authorities in some manner which will avail them an opportunity to monitor the investigation.

'Not quite going to the police to give a witness statement, but I suppose it would depend on the options for being involved in the case in that age.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

Ah, but there are key differences between Lechmere and Hutchinson...

Lechmere's life can be mapped out through scores of official documentation

Hutchinson's life is a mystery


Lechmere had Paul and a policeman as a means of giving some validity to his statement

Hutchinson has nobody to corroborate anything he says.


There's your differences right there.


RD

[Abby Normal]

I agree that it is extremely unusual for a murderer to go to the police voluntarily and give a statement.

That said, murderers involve themselves in the investigation in some way probably more than is imagined, including: being part of a search for a body, or giving a statement to the press, or taunting the police with letters, socialising with policemen/women and so on.

This article is from a retired New York police commander (homicide), who describes himself as: an expert in the sphere of homicide investigation, and since retiring he has authored books and worked as a consultant/trainer on such matters. In this article he it talking of sexual related serial murder, of which he states he has vast experience.

Articles (practicalhomicide.com)

In the article he states this:

Many serial killers have a fascination for police procedure. Some have even worked as police officers, reserve officers, or security guards. They use this experience to avoid detection. They have been known to frequent police hangouts and eavesdrop on police conversations during a case. They may even interject themselves into the investigation or offer to assist authorities in some manner which will avail them an opportunity to monitor the investigation.

'Not quite going to the police to give a witness statement, but I suppose it would depend on the options for being involved in the case in that age.

hey fm
yes i agree its rare killers go voluntarily to police but its been known to happen. perhaps if hutch was the killer, he was worried anout sarah lewis spotting him, or perhaps he was upping the thrill factor.

anyway, as odd as it seems, Abberline had some doubts about hutchs story, at least initially, as he said that he "interrogated" him.

[The Rookie Detective]

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 .

Whether the police took him seriously or not, is not an optimum basis from which to work.

The police throughout history have been renowned for not taking people seriously or vice versa, and in the process, killers have walked free, and innocent people have been convicted.
The Yorkshire Ripper case is a prime example, and NOT and isolated one.

There's always an element of bias when it comes to any police investigation; because although professional, people are still people, and it's impossible to completely eradicate presumption or prejudice.

If we look at Hutchinson's, timing, words, and actions, we can build a picture of his potential intent, and that says a lot about a witness's integrity.

Let's not forget that he almost certainly used an alias. If George Hutchinson was his real name, he wouldn't disappear like a ghost.

The same applies to Schwartz. Nothing he said can be corroborated and he also is a ghost.

The similarity between Schwartz and Hutchinson is closer than people realize.

The witness who alleges to have seen everything in detail and can fully recall every detail is a witness with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda.

The most reliable witnesses are those who lack such vivid accounts.

Less is more when it comes to the authenticity of witness accounts.


Hutchinson, Schwartz, Packer... take away their stories/accounts, and the forced narrative is broken.


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

That wasn't what George stated. He stated that he he didn't see anyone else, as opposed to didn't see any other man.

I had to wonder, am I the only one who actually reads up on Victorian society?

I studied history at university, including British social history: late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

I've seen many a post on both this forum and JTR forums, and articles written by people who more than likely have posted on both forums; who quite clearly had read about Victorian society.

No, you're not alone.

The reason why I haven't replied to those particular points is that they have no relevance to the OP. It would make an interesting topic, however, and I'd imagine you'd have some contributors including myself.

The one point you make with relevance is that you appear to be saying that a man would not notice a woman, or consider a woman's presence, or both. Can you elaborate on that?

[The Rookie Detective]

That said, murderers involve themselves in the investigation in some way probably more than is imagined, including: being part of a search for a body, or giving a statement to the press, or taunting the police with letters, socialising with policemen/women and so on.
.

Sounds like Albert Bachert in a nutshell


RD

[Wickerman]

Ah, but there are key differences between Lechmere and Hutchinson...

Lechmere's life can be mapped out through scores of official documentation

Hutchinson's life is a mystery


Lechmere had Paul and a policeman as a means of giving some validity to his statement

Hutchinson has nobody to corroborate anything he says.


There's your differences right there.


RD

Not really, there are male "Hutchinson's" in the census, it's not like there are no Hutchinson's.
Our problem is not knowing which one is George. That's due to our lack of knowledge, not him being evasive.
Ignorance, on the part of the researcher is responsible for most mysteries. George is out there, I came across one myself, who was written in the press as working with horses, but I think it was somewhere up north. There was no way of tying that newspaper article to our George Hutchinson in London.

[The Rookie Detective]

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?

Brilliant post, absolutely yes!

I'm inclined to agree with you (and Abby) on this (sorry Jon)

George's implying he was on personal talking terms with MJK; when nobody else proven to have known her in some way, had ever seen or heard anything about him whatsoever...That's what makes him suspicious.


Just a random curve ball here...


Any chance George Hutchinson was Albert Bachert incognito?


If you replace the name Hutchinson with Bachert, it would all make sense ha ha!



RD

[Wickerman]

The one point you make with relevance is that you appear to be saying that a man would not notice a woman, or consider a woman's presence, or both. Can you elaborate on that?

Women have been mentioned by male witnesses, of course I know this. What I am saying is, when we come across a situation where a male witness doesn't mention a female, it cannot be assumed the man is lying. There is a social reason why he may not have thought she was relevant.

You will notice that last sentence of the press report concerns 'men'.

"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

The only concern was - did you see any other men?

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting find...

Dewsbury Reporter Saturday 19th January 1889



George?



RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

You will notice that last sentence of the press report concerns 'men'.

"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

The only concern was - did you see any other men?

I don't notice.

He said that he saw two men and nobody else. I've no idea how you've extrapolated that to mean he was only looking for men.

And of course, George tells us that he did notice single women on their own. He noticed Mary on her own earlier in the exchange.

Which brings us back to George the giver of sixpence, a day's pay.

I don't know about you but where I come from I can't imagine anyone, no matter how desperate, asking for a day's pay; quite simply because it isn't going to happen. It's an extraordinary claim.

We know that women would prostitute themselves for as little as three pence depending on how desperate they were. Was six pence Mary's rate on that night for a bed and sex?

Did it really happen like this: George approached Mary and asked her how much including for the bed, Mary said sixpence, and went on to say: "alright my dear, come along you will be comfortable"?

Was George's statement to the police a matter of reliving the whole experience, and that's why the implausible sixpence is included? The sixpence was a part of the exchange but not in the fashion that George relays? When George said he'd been down to Romford and he spent his money there, was it a case that George had been down to Romford and actually whatever happened there, he was flush with money (by his standards)?

[mpriestnall]

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.

Well said.

Not one but two potentially key witnesses (Packer and Hutchinson) both discredited by the Star.

Maybe someone was using the Star to push a false narrative?

I haven't checked but I have a feeling they also discounted Schwartz?

That's 3 potentially key witnesses then.

Things that make you go hmmm...

[Wickerman]

I don't notice.

He said that he saw two men and nobody else. I've no idea how you've extrapolated that to mean he was only looking for men.

I thought you understood?

The subject was 'men', the police are not looking for, neither are they interested, in women. A woman is not a suspect, they want to know if he saw anyone (any men), he says he saw two, but no-one else - no other men.

And of course, George tells us that he did notice single women on their own. He noticed Mary on her own earlier in the exchange.

She is the subject of all this, of course he mentioned here - I think you're just playing games with that remark.

Which brings us back to George the giver of sixpence, a day's pay.

6d a day, for what?
A women seamstress could earn 15 shillings a week, you'll find this type of data in William Fishman's, East End 1888.
You've heard of Margaret Harkness, she wrote of about 200 trades for which females are employed, she goes on to list wages of two distinct classes, those who earn 8 shillings to 14 shillings per week, and those who earn 4s to 8s a week, with a few considerations she determined about 10s is the average weekly wage of the first class, and possibly 4s 6d the average for the second class.

Solomon Rosenberg, he worked from 7:00 am till midnight and he earned 15s a week.
A machinist Tailor working full-time could earn £2.10s a full week, down to £1 or £1.5s for two or three days work.
A Polish Slipper maker could earn about 9s a week, working for himself.
A boot finisher, in summer could earn 28s a week, in winter about 13s a week.

6d was the price of an upscale 'trick', 4d the usual price for a knee-trembler in a back ally. Mary was offering a bed - a luxury ride, you might say, for 6d.

Did it really happen like this: George approached Mary and asked her how much including for the bed, Mary said sixpence, and went on to say: "alright my dear, come along you will be comfortable"?

Was George's statement to the police a matter of reliving the whole experience, and that's why the implausible sixpence is included? The sixpence was a part of the exchange but not in the fashion that George relays? When George said he'd been down to Romford and he spent his money there, was it a case that George had been down to Romford and actually whatever happened there, he was flush with money (by his standards)?

We can't know either way for sure.

[Fleetwood Mac]

6d a day, for what?
A women seamstress could earn 15 shillings a week, you'll find this type of data in William Fishman's, East End 1888.
You've heard of Margaret Harkness, she wrote of about 200 trades for which females are employed, she goes on to list wages of two distinct classes, those who earn 8 shillings to 14 shillings per week, and those who earn 4s to 8s a week, with a few considerations she determined about 10s is the average weekly wage of the first class, and possibly 4s 6d the average for the second class.

Solomon Rosenberg, he worked from 7:00 am till midnight and he earned 15s a week.
A machinist Tailor working full-time could earn £2.10s a full week, down to £1 or £1.5s for two or three days work.
A Polish Slipper maker could earn about 9s a week, working for himself.
A boot finisher, in summer could earn 28s a week, in winter about 13s a week.

It would depend upon the nature of your job: skilled, semi-skilled or otherwise. For example, riveters working on the Tower Bridge in the 1880s earned a good wage, whereas other workers on the bridge (unskilled, casual, take what can get) earned between four and six pence per day.

Earning a living in Victorian times | Tower Bridge

[erobitha]

Whether the police took him seriously or not, is not an optimum basis from which to work.

The police throughout history have been renowned for not taking people seriously or vice versa, and in the process, killers have walked free, and innocent people have been convicted.
The Yorkshire Ripper case is a prime example, and NOT and isolated one.

There's always an element of bias when it comes to any police investigation; because although professional, people are still people, and it's impossible to completely eradicate presumption or prejudice.

If we look at Hutchinson's, timing, words, and actions, we can build a picture of his potential intent, and that says a lot about a witness's integrity.

Let's not forget that he almost certainly used an alias. If George Hutchinson was his real name, he wouldn't disappear like a ghost.

The same applies to Schwartz. Nothing he said can be corroborated and he also is a ghost.

The similarity between Schwartz and Hutchinson is closer than people realize.

The witness who alleges to have seen everything in detail and can fully recall every detail is a witness with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda.

The most reliable witnesses are those who lack such vivid accounts.

Less is more when it comes to the authenticity of witness accounts.


Hutchinson, Schwartz, Packer... take away their stories/accounts, and the forced narrative is broken.


RD

I agree with everything in this post.