What's happened to George?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Interesting find...

Dewsbury Reporter Saturday 19th January 1889



George?

RD

'Just reading back through old threads, it seems somebody in the United States looked at Chicago police records, or asked someone in possession of them to have a look, for a George Hutchinson; and nothing came up.

'Just had a dig around to find some details on the Panama Star and Herald, maybe a The Star type of newspaper that sort of thing. 'Couldn't find much at all except that during the 1950s the newspaper ran cartoons including 'The Phantom' and ran international stories of interest to the local population.

And, there's the Australian flasher Geo Hutchinson, well, English, but chose Australia as the optimum flashing spot. I think some have argued that this is the George Hutchinson of 45 minute, pointless vigil fame.

[Wickerman]

And, there's the Australian flasher Geo Hutchinson, well, English, but chose Australia as the optimum flashing spot. I think some have argued that this is the George Hutchinson of 45 minute, pointless vigil fame.

Can't remember the man's name, but the author came forward and admitted his George was not the same George of Dorset St. fame.

The US George H. was ruled out many years ago. There used to be threads and a spot in 'Suspects' for him, a long time ago. Thats the reason Geo. Hutchinson has (Br) after his name.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

At the very least, it's odd.

George undertakes a 45 minute vigil but doesn't give a motive for doing that apart from 'waiting to see if they come out', he witnesses a man walking around one of the worst parts of London at half two in the morning looking like he has something worth taking, a woman approaches him and asks him, a casual labourer, for sixpence; another witness is in the very spot where he claims he was looking and while he mentions other people he saw he doesn't mention her, he waits before going to the police with his story when he must surely have known about the murder before that.

Taking the whole into account, his story isn't convincing.

[jmenges]

Can't remember the man's name, but the author came forward and admitted his George was not the same George of Dorset St. fame.

Stephen Senise. His George Hutchi(n)son was discovered to be at sea from July 1888 to April 1889.

JM

[Wickerman]

Stephen Senise. His George Hutchi(n)son was discovered to be at sea from July 1888 to April 1889.

JM

Thankyou much Jon.

[Wickerman]

At the very least, it's odd.
... he waits before going to the police with his story when he must surely have known about the murder before that.

He will have known about the murder, but he only knew what everyone else knew. The press were the only source the public had, aside from rumor.
The Friday evening papers only carried sparse reports; The Echo said Morris Lewis saw Kelly alive about 8:00 am, The Globe said that at 8:15 am Kelly had gone for some milk, and the Star said she was seen after daylight taking a man to her room.

Knowing this, and he only saw Kelly at 2:00 am, at least six hours before Morris Lewis, why would he go to police?
Why is that suspicious, what possible interest would the police have had in who Kelly was with six hours before her death?

Were the Saturday reports any different?
The Daily News said Kelly was seen in the pub at 10:00 am. and another report she was seen at 8:30 am.
The Daily Telegraph reported the murder had occurred just before the discovery.
The Echo acknowledged the cry of "murder" at 3:00 am, but another said it was about 1:45 am, but they repeated that she was seen at 8:00 am and again at 10:00 am in the Britannia.
The Evening News reports Kelly was seen alive at 3:00 am outside the Britannia, but that between 3:30 -4:00 am there was a cry of "murder'. They then assured the reader that Kelly was seen alive at 9:00 am Friday morning, that the murder was committed in daylight.
The Globe repeated all the above, but concluded the murder must have been committed in broad daylight.
The Morning Advertiser repeats all the late morning sightings of Kelly, but reported that she had been killed between 8:00 - 10:30 Friday morning.
The Morning Post reports a cry of murder at 1:45, then another at 3:00 am, but repeats the late morning sightings by Maxwell.
The Pall Mall Gazette lead with a subtitle - Murder committed after 9 AM.
The St. James Gazette reports on the cry of murder after 3:00 am, and repeats the late morning sightings of Kelly going for provisions at 8:00 am, and being seen in the Britannia at 10:00 am.
The Star writes of a hundred circumstantial stories of cries of murder, that one woman confessed her story was a fabrication. They then repeat Lewis & Maxwell's stories about Kelly being seen in the late morning, and in the ringers at 10:00 am.
The Times reports on the late morning sightings by Lewis & Maxwell, but includes a few paragraphs of a story doing the rounds about Kelly being seen with a man Thursday night at 10:00 pm.

After all this, what have we read that convinces us that we should go immediately to the police and report seeing Kelly at 2:00 am Friday morning with a strange looking man?
What purpose would it serve?

It was only first discovered and published on Sunday (Lloyds Weekly News) that the doctors had determined that the murder was committed as early as 2:00 or 3:00 am Friday morning.

It was also Sunday when G.H. said he first went to police to tell his story.

George learned for the first time, that Kelly had likely been murdered about the time he left Dorset st. so he went to police on Monday.

[Fleetwood Mac]

After all this, what have we read that convinces us that we should go immediately to the police and report seeing Kelly at 2:00 am Friday morning with a strange looking man?

What purpose would it serve?

I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

It's being presented as a perfectly normal series of events, when in fact George Hutchinson's witness statement is extremely unusual when considered alongside the various other witness statements.

Many witnesses gave statements relating to different points in the evening/morning and appeared at the inquest, regardless of when they believed, or the press reported; Mary's TOD. Among the witnesses, George Hutchinson alone felt it expedient to walk into a police station after the inquest had taken place.

And of course, the reports you cite were not stating that Mary was murdered at nine in the morning or whatever, they were reporting on witness statements, including a cry of murder much earlier in the morning.

It's stretching it to suggest that George alone concluded from press reports that Mary had been murdered at nine in the morning or whatever, and decided he had no need to give a statement.

[Wickerman]

I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

I welcome the challenge, because I think it makes perfect sense.

It's being presented as a perfectly normal series of events, when in fact George Hutchinson's witness statement is extremely unusual when considered alongside the various other witness statements.

Now you're talking about his statement, not my last post?
We've had it described by ex-policemen on here as more detailed than usual, but that in itself is not so strange. Some witnesses can be very detailed, especially when that witness is very annoyed at something the suspect did.

This, I think is a point often overlooked by those who criticize his story. It's a psychological aspect, that the witness gets very detailed about the suspect when what happened annoyed him/her. It's like their brain is making an extra effort to make sure "you get this guy"!
Police know it happens, it takes a psychologist to explain the reason behind it.

Many witnesses gave statements relating to different points in the evening/morning and appeared at the inquest, regardless of when they believed, or the press reported; Mary's TOD. Among the witnesses, George Hutchinson alone felt it expedient to walk into a police station after the inquest had taken place.

I'm not sure if you're saying what I think you're saying, but if you mean witnesses came forward to police to report what they knew 'before' they learned the actual time of death?
That is totally wrong.
Which means I've likely misunderstood what you meant.

All the witnesses were those who were in Millers Court on that day, aside from Barnett, Abberline & Phillips. And all those had to be there, no choice.
Maxwell is the only one who was not in Millers Court that we know of. Yet she could have turned up once the murder was known, and before the police closed the court.
So, I'm not sure what/who you are comparing Hutchinson's position with.

And of course, the reports you cite were not stating that Mary was murdered at nine in the morning or whatever, they were reporting on witness statements, including a cry of murder much earlier in the morning.

Did you read them all?
The Morning Advertiser repeats all the late morning sightings of Kelly, but reported that she had been killed between 8:00 - 10:30 Friday morning.
The Pall Mall Gazette lead with a subtitle - Murder committed after 9 AM.
I can understand if you skipped a few - no-one likes to read lists.
But it isn't right that you state something that is directly opposed to what was written.

It's stretching it to suggest that George alone concluded from press reports that Mary had been murdered at nine in the morning or whatever, and decided he had no need to give a statement.

I never said such a thing, there could have been dozens who were shocked at the conclusion, no-one more than Maxwell & M.Lewis, and Hutchinson.

He still may have not believed what he was hearing, but following the inquest, when the Star published their early afternoon edition, they used a subtitle - The Murderer Described, (or words to that effect).
They then gave the account of Mary Cox seeing Kelly with Blotchy at 11:45, or thereabouts. Hutch knew instantly this Blotchy character could not be the murderer. So now he does go off to the police, (he thinks) they've got the whole thing wrong!

[Fleetwood Mac]

We've had it described by ex-policemen on here as more detailed than usual, but that in itself is not so strange.

I'm not questioning his statement due to the level of detail.

All the witnesses were those who were in Millers Court on that day, aside from Barnett, Abberline & Phillips. And all those had to be there, no choice.
Maxwell is the only one who was not in Millers Court that we know of. Yet she could have turned up once the murder was known, and before the police closed the court.
So, I'm not sure what/who you are comparing Hutchinson's position with.

At all of the other inquests there were various people, some of them were from residences not close to the scene of the crime, and they saw the victims at various points in the day.

Had George not left it until after the inquest to walk into Commercial Street Police Station, then George's statement would have been taken serious enough to demand being at the inquest.

The people present at Mary's inquest does not negate George's actions and statement being suspect. In fact, it has no relevance.

Did you read them all?
The Morning Advertiser repeats all the late morning sightings of Kelly, but reported that she had been killed between 8:00 - 10:30 Friday morning.
The Pall Mall Gazette lead with a subtitle - Murder committed after 9 AM.

I did.

You're suggesting that either George read all of the newspapers and concluded that Mary had been killed at 9 in the morning or whatever, even though a small minority of those newspapers claimed that, or George read only one of the small minority of newspapers claiming that.

'Seems unlikely.

Add in that this is George's friend, who asks him for sixpence and he gives her a few shillings from time to time, and it is highly unlikely that George concluded his sighting at half two in the morning wasn't important in the context of his friend being found dead eight hours later. And of course, according to George they didn't come out of Miller's Court during his 45 minute vigil which would render George's man an important suspect (given the nature of the murder and the time required to be in Mary's room).

I cannot conceive of a scenario whereby a witness watches a victim and a man go into the victim's room, and they do not leave the room at three in the morning or whatever, and the victim is found dead in the morning; and the witness does not believe that to be important information.

[Sunny Delight]

I'm not questioning his statement due to the level of detail.



At all of the other inquests there were various people, some of them were from residences not close to the scene of the crime, and they saw the victims at various points in the day.

Had George not left it until after the inquest to walk into Commercial Street Police Station, then George's statement would have been taken serious enough to demand being at the inquest.

The people present at Mary's inquest does not negate George's actions and statement being suspect. In fact, it has no relevance.



I did.

You're suggesting that either George read all of the newspapers and concluded that Mary had been killed at 9 in the morning or whatever, even though a small minority of those newspapers claimed that, or George read only one of the small minority of newspapers claiming that.

'Seems unlikely.

Add in that this is George's friend, who asks him for sixpence and he gives her a few shillings from time to time, and it is highly unlikely that George concluded his sighting at half two in the morning wasn't important in the context of his friend being found dead eight hours later. And of course, according to George they didn't come out of Miller's Court during his 45 minute vigil which would render George's man an important suspect (given the nature of the murder and the time required to be in Mary's room).

I cannot conceive of a scenario whereby a witness watches a victim and a man go into the victim's room, and they do not leave the room at three in the morning or whatever, and the victim is found dead in the morning; and the witness does not believe that to be important information.

I think we need to take a step back. Mary Kelly was murdered in the early hours of Friday morning. George Hutchinson went to the Police on Monday evening with his information and also claimed to have told a fixed point duty Policeman his story on Sunday morning. I don't find this very unusual. I don't think we need elaborate theories of thinking the death had occurred on Friday morning much later than his sighting.

I think we need to look at this in a much colder fashion. The first thing is that the vast majority of people do not like to insert themselves into investigations never mind one of such significance as the Whitechapel murders. He may have been fearful of coming forward. Second is that over the course of a few days what he had seen clearly played on his conscience. He knew it was important information. He eventually confided in a friend at his lodging house, the friend advised going to the Police and Hutchinson obviously needed this encouragement. Thirdly is that Hutchinson felt he had seen the man again at Petticoat Market on Sunday morning. This obviously also played into his emotional dilemma as he saw it.

At the end of the day the man came forward after 3 days. In regards a crime that is probably quite quick. In regards the Inquest almost everyone was astounded it ended after one day. The big problem for us is that we do not know who George Hutchinson was. We can't really judge the man as a liar or fantasist when we don't know who he was. All we can really do is take Sarah Lewis statement that she saw a man standing where Hutchinson said he was at the time he said he was there. Frederick Abberline stated he interrogated him and believed him. He tells his story to the Police and the Papers. The level of consistency is pretty remarkable with over 30 similarities. A couple of differences but they would be trivial in the circumstances. Overall he should be seen as credible from what we know- which admittedly is not a lot to be totally fair.

[Wickerman]

I'm not questioning his statement due to the level of detail.



At all of the other inquests there were various people, some of them were from residences not close to the scene of the crime, and they saw the victims at various points in the day.

Had George not left it until after the inquest to walk into Commercial Street Police Station, then George's statement would have been taken serious enough to demand being at the inquest.

The people present at Mary's inquest does not negate George's actions and statement being suspect. In fact, it has no relevance.

What happened at other inquests is completely irrelevant to what George did, there was no-one else in previous inquests in the same position.
I've offered two scenario's to explain why George did not go straight to police & why he felt he needed to go when he did. Both quite reasonable, both factual & both understandable.

I did.

You're suggesting that either George read all of the newspapers and concluded that Mary had been killed at 9 in the morning or whatever, even though a small minority of those newspapers claimed that, or George read only one of the small minority of newspapers claiming that.

That is an extreme interpretation. The common stories floating about that weekend will naturally turn into gossip. That is all Hutchinson needs to hear from his friends, and everyone gossiping about the case.
As the press are the only source for the public, then we know what the public were thinking if we read what the papers were writing. You've never lived in that kind of environment where the newspaper is the only window you have on the world, no radio, no TV, no internet. So, if we want to know what Hutchinson was thinking we only have to turn to the newspapers. The police were not making public announcements, in fact Scotland Yard wouldn't even talk to the press.
So George doesn't even need to have the ability to read, everyone else is doing that for him, and he is taking in the gossip, so he knows the current thinking was that Kelly was alive until shortly after 8:00 am, and that within a hour or two she was killed.

What was Chapman doing 6 hours before her murder, and how relevant was it?
The same question with Eddowes, Stride, Nichols, who cares what or who they were with 6+ hours before they were murdered.
Not one of them was doing anything that had an impact on their murder.
So of course Hutchinson did not feel compelled to run to police on Friday or Saturday, but that all changed at some point on Sunday. So now he is wrestling with the fact he could have seen her murderer after all, or could he become a suspect by coming forward?
Not an easy decision to make, apparently he had to be convinced to come forward.

I cannot conceive of a scenario whereby a witness watches a victim and a man go into the victim's room, and they do not leave the room at three in the morning or whatever, and the victim is found dead in the morning; and the witness does not believe that to be important information.

So, (he's thinking) are all those witnesses who saw her alive after 8:00 just lying or at best, all mistaken?
What is the inspector going to say when he tells his story, "go sleep it off George, she was alive at 8:00 am that morning" - (How embarrassing).

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is an extreme interpretation. The common stories floating about that weekend will naturally turn into gossip. That is all Hutchinson needs to hear from his friends, and everyone gossiping about the case.
As the press are the only source for the public, then we know what the public were thinking if we read what the papers were writing. You've never lived in that kind of environment where the newspaper is the only window you have on the world, no radio, no TV, no internet. So, if we want to know what Hutchinson was thinking we only have to turn to the newspapers. The police were not making public announcements, in fact Scotland Yard wouldn't even talk to the press.
So George doesn't even need to have the ability to read, everyone else is doing that for him, and he is taking in the gossip, so he knows the current thinking was that Kelly was alive until shortly after 8:00 am, and that within a hour or two she was killed.


So, (he's thinking) are all those witnesses who saw her alive after 8:00 just lying or at best, all mistaken?
What is the inspector going to say when he tells his story, "go sleep it off George, she was alive at 8:00 am that morning" - (How embarrassing).

At its core, you're suggesting that the information was filtered in a manner that meant George did not feel the reported cries of murder and other bits were important, or that such information did not reach George.

How exactly did the assorted busybodies gossiping in the streets, collectively conclude that Mary was murdered at nine in the morning or whatever and ensured that conclusion reached George?

How and why did the minority of press reports that suggested a later TOD come to George's attention, whereas the majority of press reports which simply reported witness statements from throughout the night/morning did not reach George?

[caz]

In Hutch's place, on hearing that Kelly had been found horribly mutilated in her room, the morning after I had been waiting outside for 45 minutes, I think I would have wanted to read every newspaper I could get hold of, and then think long and hard before coming forward as a potential witness, and taking my chances with a police force up to their necks in unsolved murders and not a single suspect in custody.

If I had read that Kelly was seen alive by more than one witness, hours after I had left Miller's Court, I might breathe a sigh of relief, but would still be wary of rushing to admit to my presence up until 3am, waiting in vain for the man with Kelly to emerge, because it would not prove I didn't return in the morning to find Kelly on her own. I'd certainly be worried if I lacked an alibi for the whole time before her body was found.

I also take Jon's point. If Hutch didn't initially think the man with Kelly could have killed her, because of the reported sightings of her alive, that would have given him the excuse he needed for not getting involved and his conscience would be clear. The risk of being suspected of some involvement, if he admitted to his connection with the victim and the scene of crime, was still there at the back of his mind, so why would he have taken that risk if he didn't think his information was relevant?

We know Blotchy Face didn't come forward, for obvious reasons, whether or not his only crime was to be entertained by Kelly in her own room. The situation for Hutch was not an awful lot better, but he did the right thing in the end if he told the truth about the man he saw who replaced Blotchy.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fleetwood Mac]

In Hutch's place, on hearing that Kelly had been found horribly mutilated in her room, the morning after I had been waiting outside for 45 minutes, I think I would have wanted to read every newspaper I could get hold of, and then think long and hard before coming forward as a potential witness, and taking my chances with a police force up to their necks in unsolved murders and not a single suspect in custody.

I'd be entirely different. I'd be thinking: I saw that woman go into a room with a man and they didn't come out of the room at three in the morning or so, this needs to be brought to the attention of the police.

George was suspicious of the man with his friend. They were doing no more than walking down the street. Supposedly, when George heard of his friend being found dead on the same morning, after witnessing the 'suspicious' man going into his friend's room and not coming out, he was no longer suspicious of that same man.

George could well have been talking out of his crevice. The motive is debatable.

[caz]

Where do you get that Hutch was 'suspicious' of the man with Kelly before he learned what had happened to her?

There is no suggestion that Hutch was suspicious of the man's motives for going back to Kelly's room with her. It would have been pretty obvious to Hutch, and he told the police that he had been given no reason to think the man meant her any harm. Clearly, Kelly herself had no qualms about letting him in, and Hutch was apparently curious because the man appeared to be a cut above her usual customers. That doesn't amount to being 'suspicious', does it?

Love,

Caz
X