Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this the right Hutchinson?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this the right Hutchinson?

    Hi, Im very much the novice and am interested in finding out a bit about the witness George Hutchinson. In the census 1881, I have come across a George Hutchinson living on Spencer Street St George in The East London, listed as married to Margaret and occupation a butcher. It was a bit harder finding him in the 1891, but I believe him to then be living in Ratcliff London, now with two children, George and Eliza. By the time the 1901 is published, his wife and eldest child are living in Newington London, his son is also a butcher. George by this time is lodging (which I know sometimes can just mean visiting-he is still listed as married, although Margaret lists as "living on her own means") at a different address in Newington.

    Is this the George Hutchinson who came forward as a witness to MJK please?

    Thank you!!

  • #2
    kerrypn

    Hi I found this same chap some time ago, He lived down near Breezers HIll and if you look on his marriage cert...(I will give you details in a moment) You will find he was a groom at that time....

    Pat..................

    Comment


    • #3
      Oooh thanks Pat that would be great, I couldn't find his marriage record! Am I on the right person then?

      Comment


      • #4
        Marriage details

        June 22nd 1974

        George James Hutchinson (Groom) 21 married Margaret Isabella Stevens 19
        at Christchurch St George in the East. It says he lived at 12 Martha street and his ather was Thomas Hutchinson a Stone Mason.
        Margarets address was given as 17 Tarling street. Her father was John Stevens a rope maker.
        Witnesses were: Maria Jane Danvill or Parvill?? and W.S Johnston.

        Pat............

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paddy View Post
          June 22nd 1974

          George James Hutchinson (Groom) 21 married Margaret Isabella Stevens 19
          at Christchurch St George in the East. It says he lived at 12 Martha street and his ather was Thomas Hutchinson a Stone Mason.
          Margarets address was given as 17 Tarling street. Her father was John Stevens a rope maker.
          Witnesses were: Maria Jane Danvill or Parvill?? and W.S Johnston.

          Pat............
          Sorry Pat just can't help myself.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gut

            Oops ........make that 1874....I am always getting my centurys mixed up. I spent half the day today thinking it was Saturday....and its friday....
            Thanks
            Pat....

            Comment


            • #7
              Kerrypn

              Oooh thanks Pat that would be great, I couldn't find his marriage record! Am I on the right person then?

              Not sure, The fact that he lived down near Breezers Hill where Mary Jane Kelly lived makes it possible. He said he had known her about three years.

              Here is his signature from wedding.


              Pat..............
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks very much Pat! I think I was unsure as I am sure I remember reading somewhere that the George Hutchinson who gave a statement gave his occupation as a labourer, and then elsewhere that he wore military type dress (although I am less sure on the latter!)

                I did wonder how likely a married man would be to come forward and admit knowing a prostitute, is there anything else known about the George who approached the police at all?

                Im grateful for the wedding info, I am a but hit and miss on the search malarkey at the moment! Was there ever a sample of the Hutchinson signature (I know some believe that the signature on the statement was not signed by him but on his behalf)

                Thanks so much Pat, you've been a star!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                  Oops ........make that 1874....I am always getting my centurys mixed up. I spent half the day today thinking it was Saturday....and its friday....
                  Thanks
                  Pat....
                  No worries Pat, sorry just couldn't help myself, I keep thinking It's Sunday today when it is Saturday, but that's probably just because it's the 2nd day off work, yipeee.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kerrypn View Post
                    Thanks very much Pat! I think I was unsure as I am sure I remember reading somewhere that the George Hutchinson who gave a statement gave his occupation as a labourer, and then elsewhere that he wore military type dress (although I am less sure on the latter!)
                    Unemployed labourer and former groom from memory.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks GUT! That is a bit odd in and of itself... the man who lived on Spencer street always gave his occupation as a butcher, but as Pat found on his marriage certificate, gave his occupation as a groom....either these are two different men (does not seem likely since the marriage and birth places etc match)...or it is not the George who gave a statement (this is quite likely I suppose, Im guessing there were several George Hutchinsons in London at that time!) or George gave his occupation as different to the police and to the census...there seems little doubt the George I refer to was a butcher, since his son later followed him into the profession and it is listed on three consecutive censuses.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In terms of a suspect, I have several problems with George Hutchinson, which relates mainly to who JTR victims actually were. I have always struggled with any kind of assertion that Jack simply voluntarily stopped killing and remained at large in the community. I also find it difficult to imagine a serial killer committing a crime as ferocious as MJK (and I do believe MJK was a JTR victim-I know some people do not) would then commit further murders either dropping is MO completely (as has been postulated with murders following MJK for example) or not quite mutilating to the level he had previously. I think the step up from Eddowes to Kelly suggests he has to increase the level of violence to achieve the same satisfaction.

                        That being said, I know there are some prolific serial killers, I think the green river killer was one, who did stop killing for a prolonged period voluntarily so I realise that it cannot be excluded JTR just stopped. Also, the coming forward voluntarily to bring yourself into police attention does not seem typical, but again, there are examples such as Ian Huntley.

                        All that being said, I think GH is a person of interest, that's why I am trying to find out a bit more about him, the description he gave was just so detailed...

                        Am I right in thinking GH identified MJK? If so, this could be construed as revisiting the crime couldn't it, or equally GH could have been telling the truth-was there no one else who could ID the body?

                        Sorry for the waffle haha and thanks for the help so far!
                        Last edited by kerrypn; 04-04-2015, 02:05 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kerrypn View Post
                          Thanks GUT! That is a bit odd in and of itself... the man who lived on Spencer street always gave his occupation as a butcher, but as Pat found on his marriage certificate, gave his occupation as a groom....either these are two different men (does not seem likely since the marriage and birth places etc match)...or it is not the George who gave a statement (this is quite likely I suppose, Im guessing there were several George Hutchinsons in London at that time!) or George gave his occupation as different to the police and to the census...there seems little doubt the George I refer to was a butcher, since his son later followed him into the profession and it is listed on three consecutive censuses.
                          I am not persuaded that your GH and Pat's GH are one and the same, [thay may be but I'm not yet convinced] George was a very common first name and Hutchinson wasn't exactly rare.

                          Good luck in your hunt though.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks GUT! I think Pat said that they were, although I could be mistaken I suppose it will be difficult to prove absolutely who he was.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Pat, all.

                              I had a look at this George Hutchinson a couple of years ago now [I think this may have come up last year sometime? don't exactly recall]

                              Anyway, here's a bit more for any who are interested.

                              This George Hutchinson was the son of Thomas Hutchinson, a stonemason from Bishop Auckland [where Hutchinsons abound] Thomas Hutchinson was dead by 1871, when his widow, Susan, was working as a dressmaker and living at 9, Russell Street, Mile End [Old Town] with her three sons, Thomas, George and William. George is listed in the 1871 census as a ‘Manager at Green Grocers’ which has always seemed intrinsically unlikely to me; given that he was 15 at the time.

                              From the basptim records of his children, Susan Eliza [b.1st October 1886] and George Thomas [b.24th March 1883] we can see that George Hutchinson and his family were living at 36, Usher Road, Old Ford in 1883 and had moved to Horner's Buildings [Asby & Horner] in Shadwell by 1886.

                              I think that this GH has a few things going for him as the GH - name, sometime occupation, location etc. There are some summary issues but most can be explained. The witness GH claimed to be single and a former groom now labourer; whereas GJH was married, was a former groom but by 1888 had been a butcher for some years.

                              However, if they were one and the same, I can see why he might not a] want his family to know that he'd known a recently murdered prostitute; and b] why he might not want to tell the police he was a butcher. The VH was often frequented by married men who'd become estranged from their wives - there is documentary evidence to the fact - so his presence there wouldn't have been unusual.

                              The big problem, which I think would be difficult to surmount, is that his signature is not similar to those on the witness statement; either on his marriage certificate; or his daughter's death certificate from 1893. You might argue that somebody else had signed for GJH in 1888; but I don't know why that would be the case? He was literate and thus capable of signing for himself.

                              GJH died in 1905 from heart failure. His estranged wife Margaret registered his death, presumably as next of kin.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X