An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[Garry Wroe]

Well we don't know that the 'alleged' encounter - their meeting by chance on his return from Romford, and her request for sixpence - took place as he claimed, do we? So why would we rely on his claim to have seen Astrakhan beforehand?

We shouldn't, Caz. Nor should we take anything he says regarding Kelly and Astrakhan at face value. The miraculously sobered-up Kelly is but one reason why I've long suspected that the Astrakhan story was pure fiction on Hutchnson's part. I'm not even convinced that he walked from Romford on the night in question. His police statement signatures also incline me to the view that he was operating under an assumed name. In fact, if Hutchinson was to tell me that my name is Garry Wroe I'd slip off to check my birth certificate before accepting him at his word.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinsons story is like a stalking record, and a personal acquaintence with Mary isnt enough of a reasonable explanation Ben. I would think the very fact he claims a position that until his appearance, looked like an accomplice situation or at least a watch-out, is suspicious..although it makes the pardon issuance from Warren on Saturday understandable.

Its not only the eery watching of the room...its the fact that that wideawake man was already very suspicious.

[Ben]

Hi Caz

"But isn't it a bit extreme to have Abberline 'assuming' his curiosity was partly because of his personal connection with the woman, rather than admit he would simply have asked for clarification if that were the case? It's this odd curiosity thing that cries out for further explanation."

Granted, but I think the curiosity excuse was "blaggable". He might have said something like: "I've known that girl for three years, sir, and I've never known 'er to 'obnob with them posh, fancy types. It was so out of character for her, and I guess that got me a bit curious like, so I stuck about for a bit." I can't imagine that would have rung any immediate alarm bells for Abberline, and it wasn't as if William Marshall had any better excuse for skulking about on Berner Street when he saw Stride and companion walk past.

If Hutchinson had disclosed any other reason for his Dorset Street loitering, it would almost certainly have appeared in Abberline's report instead of the "idle curiosity" excuse.

All the best,
Ben

[MysterySinger]

I like the Fleming/Hutch connection too. How do we know Fleming used the name of George Hutchinson on occasion? Also did he have a sister in Romford?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thanks for this. I was unaware of the Joseph Fleming hypothesis, but it certainly looks intriguing.

I agree it would be risky to use a false name, however, a number of witnesses may have done so, without suffering serious consequences: Cross/Lechmere, Lewis/Kennedy, Long/ Darrell. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon at this time for individuals to use more than one name, so it's something that the police wouldn't necessarily regard as suspicious.

Re flemming/hutch. I believe in Bens article. intriguing idea.

[John G]

Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence.
A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers christian names.

(Rapalje, Stewart and Lawrence, Robert L., A Dictionary of American and English Law with Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws (3rd edition, 1997).

Under
Common Law, everyone may change his first name and/or surname as he pleases, provided
that he does not thereby intend to deceive or defraud another. A person changes his name
simply by assuming and using a new name that becomes generally accredited.

(The Protection of Personal Names under English and German Law,
Professor John Phillips)

Common Law is very clear on this; except for unlawful purposes (fraud, for example, or avoiding arrest) anyone can call themselves any name they wish by the simple process of adopting the new name in their everyday life. This obviously doesn't apply to situations where the legal name, recorded on a birth certificate (which can not be changed), is required; but for the poor labouring classes of Victorian Whitechapel such situations would be rare.

So the idea of using a 'false name' is a bit misleading; unlawful intent would need to be established - otherwise, it's just an alias or 'also known as', of which the Ripper records are full.

Yes, I'm well aware that, under English Law, a person is normally free to refer to themselves by whatever name they wish. However, as I've pointed out before, according to the Crime Prosecution Service, the current position is that if you provide false details of identity to the police or courts with the view of avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution, then that might result in a charge of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. See:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ging_standard/

In any event, if Hutchinson was involved in the murder of Kelly, then giving a false name would be clearly risky, as such a strategy might invite suspicion.

[Mirandola]

Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence.
A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers christian names.

(Rapalje, Stewart and Lawrence, Robert L., A Dictionary of American and English Law with Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws (3rd edition, 1997).

Under
Common Law, everyone may change his first name and/or surname as he pleases, provided
that he does not thereby intend to deceive or defraud another. A person changes his name
simply by assuming and using a new name that becomes generally accredited.

(The Protection of Personal Names under English and German Law,
Professor John Phillips)

Common Law is very clear on this; except for unlawful purposes (fraud, for example, or avoiding arrest) anyone can call themselves any name they wish by the simple process of adopting the new name in their everyday life. This obviously doesn't apply to situations where the legal name, recorded on a birth certificate (which can not be changed), is required; but for the poor labouring classes of Victorian Whitechapel such situations would be rare.

So the idea of using a 'false name' is a bit misleading; unlawful intent would need to be established - otherwise, it's just an alias or 'also known as', of which the Ripper records are full.

[John G]

Hi JnG



I don't think so. but that begs the question-or a question by the police-where did you know her FROM-around here or somewhere else? oops-busted.
If he didn't really know her he would have know idea where she lived over the past three years, not just locally.




I believe the explanation was that hutch corrected himself while giving the police statement.




Possibly, but I think that too would be risky. Also, some have put forth that Hutch was Joe Flemming (who did use George Hutchinson as a false name), Mary's ex, who used to "ill use her" and who later would up in an institution.
There are some connections/similarities there as both lived in the Victoria House, or something along those lines. I think Ben knows more about that angle.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for this. I was unaware of the Joseph Fleming hypothesis, but it certainly looks intriguing.

I agree it would be risky to use a false name, however, a number of witnesses may have done so, without suffering serious consequences: Cross/Lechmere, Lewis/Kennedy, Long/ Darrell. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon at this time for individuals to use more than one name, so it's something that the police wouldn't necessarily regard as suspicious.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply, you make some good points. However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time? Of course, Caroline Maxwell also claimed to have known Kelly, but given the lateness of her sighting this is at least questionable. Moreover, Kelly had been living with Joseph Barnett for eighteen months, but he makes no mention of Hutchinson.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".

However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name? My understanding is that modern attempts to identify "George Hutchinson" have proved somewhat fruitless and, given the Cross/Lechmere confusion, to what extent would the police have acted to confirm his identity?

Hi JnG

However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time

I don't think so. but that begs the question-or a question by the police-where did you know her FROM-around here or somewhere else? oops-busted.
If he didn't really know her he would have know idea where she lived over the past three years, not just locally.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".

I believe the explanation was that hutch corrected himself while giving the police statement.

However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name?

Possibly, but I think that too would be risky. Also, some have put forth that Hutch was Joe Flemming (who did use George Hutchinson as a false name), Mary's ex, who used to "ill use her" and who later would up in an institution.
There are some connections/similarities there as both lived in the Victoria House, or something along those lines. I think Ben knows more about that angle.

[caz]

The police would surely have assumed - even without Hutchinson saying so explicitly - that the length of his loitering was at least partially accounted for by Hutchinson having a personal connection with the victim.

Not sure I follow you here, Ben. The police (aka Abberline) didn't need to 'assume' anything: Hutch only had to be asked! I know how much you resist any suggestion that the reason Hutch gave for his lengthy vigil was not immediately accepted without question, even though it amounted to idle curiosity about the man. But isn't it a bit extreme to have Abberline 'assuming' his curiosity was partly because of his personal connection with the woman, rather than admit he would simply have asked for clarification if that were the case? It's this odd curiosity thing that cries out for further explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi JohnG

as far as I know-there is no other evidence he knew her.

But everything seems to point that he did. I just find it to a risky a lie if he didn't know her. and Plus even saying he knew her for a few years. If that was a lie, how did he know long she lived there? what if she just moved there?
hed get sussed out in a hurry.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply, you make some good points. However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time? Of course, Caroline Maxwell also claimed to have known Kelly, but given the lateness of her sighting this is at least questionable. Moreover, Kelly had been living with Joseph Barnett for eighteen months, but he makes no mention of Hutchinson.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".

However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name? My understanding is that modern attempts to identify "George Hutchinson" have proved somewhat fruitless and, given the Cross/Lechmere confusion, to what extent would the police have acted to confirm his identity?

[harry]

Who are the 'They' that believed him(Hutchinson)?

Apart from Aberline,what other remarks,police,papers etc,signifies a belief he(Hutchinson) was telling the truth?

Today,examining the same information that was available in 1888,many disbelieve his account.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

But apart from Hutchinson's own testimony is there any other evidence that he knew the victim? Moreover, as Sarah Lewis was unable to effectively describe or identify the man she saw, are we not also reliant on Hutchinson's own testimony as evidence that he was there at all?

Hi JohnG

as far as I know-there is no other evidence he knew her.

But everything seems to point that he did. I just find it to a risky a lie if he didn't know her. and Plus even saying he knew her for a few years. If that was a lie, how did he know long she lived there? what if she just moved there?
hed get sussed out in a hurry.

[Abby Normal]

Come to think of it, following on from Michael's recent post, how many prostitute killers have come forward and claimed a friendly acquaintance with their latest victim, when there wasn't one at all?

Seems an odd and unnecessary risk to invite questions about a victim one barely knew, if at all. That would apply whether Hutch was the killer or an attention seeker who invented an encounter with Kelly shortly before she was killed. He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to where she was later found murdered. And he wouldn't have faced as much criticism for leaving an unknown woman to her fate, then putting off going to the police about it.

If there's one thing that rings true to me about Hutch's tale, it's his claim to have known Kelly reasonably well. If this was so and he went on to kill her, he presumably didn't dare pretend she was a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree.
whether he was the killer or not, I think he did know her.

If he didn't know her, I think its too risky and too easy to caught in that lie.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

But are we to assume that none of that occurred to the police at the time? And if it did occur to them, wouldn't they have acted accordingly?

c.d.

Hi CD
I honestly don't think they did. I think they believed him initially, and then came to see him as another time waster. Like Packer, Violena etc.