The elusive George Hutchinson

[The Rookie Detective]

Sunny, I was rash in my comments to you. What plagues Ripperology, in my opinion, is the reluctance to use real data and then explore the unknown with it. I think almost everyone here knows that the basic principle of a single serial killer of five has been unprovable. Almost nothing in these cases is actual verified empirical evidence, particularly when it comes to the witnesses. But the legend, or the mythology, persists. We cant prove it, but the contemporary police thought this or that, or this press clipping answers that question with integrity and finality, so we must start with using all the data. Well, we havent moved far past that point and still use some witness claims.. that cannot be validated.. as foundation material. There are no real, trustworthy foundations yet.

George Hutchinson is someone we still cannot identify finally in any records searched for and discovered by those who toil in those fields, bless em. When the best of these researchers have not claimed to have found him, we must wonder whether his story to us is fiction or fact. I cite his time delay as good evidence that his true objective when talking to Abberline that Monday night is not obvious, or clear, but we can say it was not because he wanted to aid the police searching for her brutal murderer. He would have some forward that night, or the next day. Knowing that his supposed clues have time limits on their real value to the case.

She died early Friday morning and he came in on Monday evening. With a story that, if true, it was a huge opportunity to get a sense of her killer, by dress, by manner, and by association. The description, the details are incredible. But even if he did see Astrakan with Mary he had to know that by Monday night that man could be anywhere. Literally. So, What hope might that bring to the investigators? What value did it have after some days simmering on the stove? I submit that his alleged friendly manner with Mary.. alluding to a friendly or acquaintance-like rapport with her, is not why he came in. I think that there is no evidence that might exclude his claiming the role of Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Hat Man as his goal. If that is the real reason he comes in, then why would he do so? As I said, Warrens last official signing was that Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday afternoon. They had never before entertained that idea seriously. Wideawake Hat man gave them that suggestion. And George changed the veneer of that man with his assuming that role at that location on that night. He was now a friend looking out for a friend, just to be sure she was safe, you know.

Maybe now you can see why I run with ideas some times, Im not held back by people like George, or Israel, or Joseph Lawende, or Mrs Long, or Carrie Maxwell, or listen to the contradictory comments from the insiders of the cases, the men running the show. You have to have clean data or its gtedigo.

Remember, our pal Abberline of Penetrating Gaze, London, also claimed Chapmans story just "dovetailed" for him, after he was executed. He says then that Chapman was the Ripper. Then others say they got him and locked him away, or that they never knew anything tangible, or that it was a conspiracy..a hot potato...

People say lots of things for lots of different reasons. Sorry for the long wind of the truth.

Well said Michael.


George Hutchinson;
For a man who claims to be a witness and who comes across as being the concerned friend to a woman who is subsequently slaughtered, butchered, and obliterated...to leave it a few days before coming forward to give his account, to then give an exceptionally detailed and exaggerated description...and then furthermore; leave behind absolutely no paper trail over time i.e. no census data, no birth certificate, no death record, no electoral role data...

This guy warrants further scrutiny.

If we were to get a list of every single George Hutchinson and then painstakingly sift through that list...i would imagine that it would feel like chasing shadows.

What's much more likely is that George Hutchinson wasn't his real name...although he signs his name on the statements.


I still believe there's a chance it could be George William Topping Hutchinson, because the signature on his marriage certificate closely matches one of the signatures on the statement...
The only issue relates to the difference in working roles. The witness George Hutchinson is said to have been a groom and/or labourer. However, George William Topping Hutchinson was a plumber, as was his father and his father before that.
He also had a sister called Jane.


When we compare Hutchinson to another witness like Lechmere, the difference in what we know is staggering. We can pretty much build an entire life story for Lechmere/Cross...because he left a paper trail like everyone else.
Whereas George Hutchinson only seems to exist within the parameters of the JTR case...and that is suspicious enough as it is.

TRD

[Michael W Richards]

Sunny, I was rash in my comments to you. What plagues Ripperology, in my opinion, is the reluctance to use real data and then explore the unknown with it. I think almost everyone here knows that the basic principle of a single serial killer of five has been unprovable. Almost nothing in these cases is actual verified empirical evidence, particularly when it comes to the witnesses. But the legend, or the mythology, persists. We cant prove it, but the contemporary police thought this or that, or this press clipping answers that question with integrity and finality, so we must start with using all the data. Well, we havent moved far past that point and still use some witness claims.. that cannot be validated.. as foundation material. There are no real, trustworthy foundations yet.

George Hutchinson is someone we still cannot identify finally in any records searched for and discovered by those who toil in those fields, bless em. When the best of these researchers have not claimed to have found him, we must wonder whether his story to us is fiction or fact. I cite his time delay as good evidence that his true objective when talking to Abberline that Monday night is not obvious, or clear, but we can say it was not because he wanted to aid the police searching for her brutal murderer. He would have some forward that night, or the next day. Knowing that his supposed clues have time limits on their real value to the case.

She died early Friday morning and he came in on Monday evening. With a story that, if true, it was a huge opportunity to get a sense of her killer, by dress, by manner, and by association. The description, the details are incredible. But even if he did see Astrakan with Mary he had to know that by Monday night that man could be anywhere. Literally. So, What hope might that bring to the investigators? What value did it have after some days simmering on the stove? I submit that his alleged friendly manner with Mary.. alluding to a friendly or acquaintance-like rapport with her, is not why he came in. I think that there is no evidence that might exclude his claiming the role of Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Hat Man as his goal. If that is the real reason he comes in, then why would he do so? As I said, Warrens last official signing was that Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday afternoon. They had never before entertained that idea seriously. Wideawake Hat man gave them that suggestion. And George changed the veneer of that man with his assuming that role at that location on that night. He was now a friend looking out for a friend, just to be sure she was safe, you know.

Maybe now you can see why I run with ideas some times, Im not held back by people like George, or Israel, or Joseph Lawende, or Mrs Long, or Carrie Maxwell, or listen to the contradictory comments from the insiders of the cases, the men running the show. You have to have clean data or its gigo.

Remember, our pal Abberline of Penetrating Gaze, London, also claimed Chapmans story just "dovetailed" for him, after he was executed. He says then that Chapman was the Ripper. Then others say they got him and locked him away, or that they never knew anything tangible, or that it was a conspiracy..a hot potato...

People say lots of things for lots of different reasons. Sorry for the long wind of the truth.

[Michael W Richards]

No the bottom line is that we have not identified George Hutchinson so how can we in any way attempt to discern his thinking or actions? We have very little to go on. He claimed to know and be friendly with Mary Kelly. We don't know if he was or not. He claimed to know her for three years and occasionally gave her a few shillings as reported by Frederick Abberline after he had 'interrogated' him. He looked into his eyes, saw his body language- and felt his story was truthful. I would prefer to go on a man as esteemed as Abberline- who knew more about the East End and its workings than we could ever even dream of knowing.

The problem is not people who can't or won't connect dots which do not exist. The problem lies were assumptions are made based on very little. It is also problematic when esteemed Police officers opinions are dismissed or seemingly ignored by amateur sleuths coming to the case over 130 years later.

I see. So your approach is to take everything that every witness said as foundational remarks? Your "looked into his eyes" bit about Abberline is quite telling about who here is being creative and who is just following the data. The simple truth is this...there is NO REASON to accept George Hutchinsons statement as truth and there is NO reason to accept anything he says in it as accurate history. Ive pointed out, numerous times, that someone who claims to be trying to assist the police doesnt wait until the suspect could have left the country before coming forward. Its not conjecture, its common sense. Ive also pointed out that Abberline... with his captivating eyes... also backed Israel Schwartz, someone who was NOT called to the Inquest. Abberline could have made lots of errors in judgement, just like I did assuming you were capable of a reality check.

[Sunny Delight]

I really dont like addressing the kind of post you made Sunny, its too argumentative, judgemental and of no help to anyone.


1. ".......and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money.

That establishes that he claimed to know her and be on friendly terms with her. It therefore, when juxtaposed with Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Man, he lessens the potential that he was a possible accomplice, which the Pardon offer clearly uses as its basis.

2. If he intended to help the investigation ANYONE would know that the sooner he gives that info to the police the better they can follow it up. The 4 day wait does not support an intended goal of helping the police investigate this murder. Therefore, he did so for some other reason.

3. I posited 3 possible reasons, none of which I gave any priority to, but the overarching premise that IS well supported within the information I posted. That he didnt come forward to help the police. And his statement seems to suggest that he was Wideawake Hat man, asking why he would be concerned about Wideawake or impressions of his presence there (see Warrens Pardon issue), seems quite germane.

Some posters think they are so smart by not even attempting to connect any dots with circumstantial and physical evidence, they would rather just call out those who do so, and offer nothing of their own. Fortunately you are in a small community here, there are some people here who are capable of understanding what you cant, or wont.

No the bottom line is that we have not identified George Hutchinson so how can we in any way attempt to discern his thinking or actions? We have very little to go on. He claimed to know and be friendly with Mary Kelly. We don't know if he was or not. He claimed to know her for three years and occasionally gave her a few shillings as reported by Frederick Abberline after he had 'interrogated' him. He looked into his eyes, saw his body language- and felt his story was truthful. I would prefer to go on a man as esteemed as Abberline- who knew more about the East End and its workings than we could ever even dream of knowing.

The problem is not people who can't or won't connect dots which do not exist. The problem lies were assumptions are made based on very little. It is also problematic when esteemed Police officers opinions are dismissed or seemingly ignored by amateur sleuths coming to the case over 130 years later.

[Michael W Richards]

I really dont like addressing the kind of post you made Sunny, its too argumentative, judgemental and of no help to anyone.


1. ".......and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money.

That establishes that he claimed to know her and be on friendly terms with her. It therefore, when juxtaposed with Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Man, he lessens the potential that he was a possible accomplice, which the Pardon offer clearly uses as its basis.

2. If he intended to help the investigation ANYONE would know that the sooner he gives that info to the police the better they can follow it up. The 4 day wait does not support an intended goal of helping the police investigate this murder. Therefore, he did so for some other reason.

3. I posited 3 possible reasons, none of which I gave any priority to, but the overarching premise that IS well supported within the information I posted. That he didnt come forward to help the police. And his statement seems to suggest that he was Wideawake Hat man, asking why he would be concerned about Wideawake or impressions of his presence there (see Warrens Pardon issue), seems quite germane.

Some posters think they are so smart by not even attempting to connect any dots with circumstantial and physical evidence, they would rather just call out those who do so, and offer nothing of their own. Fortunately you are in a small community here, there are some people here who are capable of understanding what you cant, or wont.

[Sunny Delight]

I think the fact that it was given 4 days after the fact, George Hutchinsons statement served one specific purpose that I can see. By the details of his story he is claiming the role of the Wideawake Hat man, who, as of Sat the 9th, was considered to have been the real killers accomplice. A lookout. The Pardon issued Saturday afternoon by Warren is proof of that, and it was certainly issued based on Sarah Lewis's story.

Georges claim that he knew Mary and had befriended her before created the impression that Wideawake, if George, was a benign presence.

He certainly hadnt any intentions of aiding the investigation by oming forward, 4 days late means that anyone he claimed to have seen might be long gone.

So, why would he be concerned about the perceptions of Widewake...because it actually was him, because the killer made him make that statement, because he was in some way connected to this murder?

"Georges claim that he knew Mary and had befriended her before created the impression that Wideawake, if George, was a benign presence."

We haven't identified George Hutchinson so we don't know if he was genuinely on friendly terms with her or not. You have jumped one step ahead by declaring George Hutchinson was creating a picture of a benign presence.

"He certainly hadnt any intentions of aiding the investigation by oming forward, 4 days late means that anyone he claimed to have seen might be long gone".

We haven't identified George Hutchinson so we can't know if he had intentions of aiding the investigation or not. We dont know if he was genuinely friendly with Mary Kelly or not.

"So, why would he be concerned about the perceptions of Widewake...because it actually was him, because the killer made him make that statement, because he was in some way connected to this murder".

How do you know he was concerned with the perceptions of Wideawake man? How do you know he had heard about it? Answer- you don't. Your entire post is based on supposition and unknowns.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the fact that it was given 4 days after the fact, George Hutchinsons statement served one specific purpose that I can see. By the details of his story he is claiming the role of the Wideawake Hat man, who, as of Sat the 9th, was considered to have been the real killers accomplice. A lookout. The Pardon issued Saturday afternoon by Warren is proof of that, and it was certainly issued based on Sarah Lewis's story.

Georges claim that he knew Mary and had befriended her before created the impression that Wideawake, if George, was a benign presence.

He certainly hadnt any intentions of aiding the investigation by oming forward, 4 days late means that anyone he claimed to have seen might be long gone.

So, why would he be concerned about the perceptions of Widewake...because it actually was him, because the killer made him make that statement, because he was in some way connected to this murder?

A Brilliant post and I think you have some valid points.

When you add together the fact that he...


Came forward as a witness very late into proceedings

Gives an extraordinarily detailed descriptive account of the man he claims to have seen with MJK

Claims he was on personal speaking terms with MJK with no verification from any other witness that MJK knew him

He claims to have waited for 45 minutes opposite the entrance to Miller's court.

He doesn't appear in any census records that we know of and has no paper trail either side of him appearing out of nowhere as a witness.

...all of these combined strongly suggest that he is worth serious consideration in terms of him being involved in the murder.

It would seem possible that one of the following has to be true...

1) He was there, but didn't want to come forward until he realised he had been spotted by another witness and so had no choice but to come forward

2) He wasn't there and was a pure fantasist and came forward so that he could live out his fantasy of being the man who spotted the killer and having known the victim

3) He was JTR but his real name isn't necessarily George Hutchinson,, which would explain why he can't be found on census records etc...

If he was the killer then elements of his story will be true. The mention of the red neckerchief/handkerchief ties up with Eddowes.

So..was George Hutchinson a fantasist who made it all up to feel important, an innocent witness who genuinely saw the killer and gave a truthful and accurate statement, or was he the killer?

Thoughts?

[Michael W Richards]

I think the fact that it was given 4 days after the fact, George Hutchinsons statement served one specific purpose that I can see. By the details of his story he is claiming the role of the Wideawake Hat man, who, as of Sat the 9th, was considered to have been the real killers accomplice. A lookout. The Pardon issued Saturday afternoon by Warren is proof of that, and it was certainly issued based on Sarah Lewis's story.

Georges claim that he knew Mary and had befriended her before created the impression that Wideawake, if George, was a benign presence.

He certainly hadnt any intentions of aiding the investigation by oming forward, 4 days late means that anyone he claimed to have seen might be long gone.

So, why would he be concerned about the perceptions of Widewake...because it actually was him, because the killer made him make that statement, because he was in some way connected to this murder?

[The Rookie Detective]

George Hutchinson has not been identified. All we know about him is what he told the Police and then the papers. He was previously a groom but at the time an unemployed labourer. He had known Mary Kelly for around three years and had occasionally thrown her a few shillings for reasons not clarified. He stayed at the Victoria Working Men's home- am establishment of good repute. Interestingly this was the Home's rules:

1) No person in a state of intoxication will be on any account admitted.

2) No swearing or obscene language will be tolerated; order and decorum are insisted in the kitchens; silence in the bedrooms.

3) No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without a special pass.

4) Any lodger interfering with the comfort of others is at once ejected.

5) Lodgers who are fortunate enough to possess extra clothing or other personal effects, can leave them in charge of the deputy, who will give a receipt for the same.

6) Baths, warm or cold, can be had in the house. For a warm bath, a charge of one penny is made.

Is it too general to use such a sleeping arrangement as a peer into Hutchinson's character........ Abberline also seemed to believe he was genuine and unlike us he looked into the whites of his eyes and in his own words 'interrogated' him. At this juncture it may not be possible to identify who Hutchinson really was.

I agree with you in principle; that George Hutchinson hasn't been identified and it may not be possible to identify who he was.

However, I also believe that everyone leaves a trail and for George Hutchinson to be still be such a mystery, is peculiar to say the least.

No census information
No birth, marriage, or death confirmation
No Electoral roll data

The only way to explain this is either...


1 - We have the right George Hutchinson; but can't be certain, and so choose to dismiss the notion instead of trying to delve deeper and look for evidence that has to be there somewhere.

2 - We can't find the right George Hutchinson; because we have misinformation about what we think we already know about him.

3 - George Hutchinson wasn't his real name and he chose to conceal his true identity.


The idea that we can't find the real George Hutchinson because the records don't exist; is absurd; because at the very least, everyone has a birth and death certificate.


If it's answer 1, then I think it just depends on what side of the fence you're on in terms of the overall objective of trying to find definitive clues. In other words, the fear of eventually solving the case is just as strong as the fear of never solving it.

If it's answer 2, then I think it's because he lied about everything in terms of his relationship with MJK. i.e. he was living in a fantasy world and never had the connection with MJK that he claims to of had.
Do we have any evidence from any other persons at the time who can corroborate George Hutchinson knowing MJK? Is it just his word that we assume he knew her or did he just want to feel important and fabricated his story to seem more important than he actually was?

If it's answer 3, then he's likely to have been the ripper. Creating a false identity and fabricating his story may have been a way of getting close to the investigation.

So, which answer is most likely?

The chances of us NOT being able to find the real George Hutchinson on the basis that he doesn't have any records, is the most unlikely scenario, because everyone who is true about who they say they are, will leave a trace in the records somewhere.

Thoughts?

[Sunny Delight]

I have been trying to look a little more into the life of George Hutchinson; but it appears that he is very difficult to find definitive and conclusive data about.

Is there a reason why he is relatively difficult to find compared to many other suspects/witnesses?

Was George Hutchinson his real name?

He seems a mysterious character in every sense of the word.

I read that he may have been George William Topping Hutchinson; based on a relative that claimed he was the man who knew MJK. But is this the same George Hutchinson or is he a red herring?


I know that he has been talked about many many many many times, but I think there's still more to learn about his life and think it may be worth looking at.

It's the first time I've looked at George Hutchinson as I have never really favoured him as JTR, but could the mystery surrounding who he was, be a sign of a character who needs even more focus and attention (if that's possible)

George Hutchinson has not been identified. All we know about him is what he told the Police and then the papers. He was previously a groom but at the time an unemployed labourer. He had known Mary Kelly for around three years and had occasionally thrown her a few shillings for reasons not clarified. He stayed at the Victoria Working Men's home- am establishment of good repute. Interestingly this was the Home's rules:

1) No person in a state of intoxication will be on any account admitted.

2) No swearing or obscene language will be tolerated; order and decorum are insisted in the kitchens; silence in the bedrooms.

3) No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without a special pass.

4) Any lodger interfering with the comfort of others is at once ejected.

5) Lodgers who are fortunate enough to possess extra clothing or other personal effects, can leave them in charge of the deputy, who will give a receipt for the same.

6) Baths, warm or cold, can be had in the house. For a warm bath, the charge of one penny is made.

Is it too general to use such a sleeping arrangement as a peer into Hutchinson's character........ Abberline also seemed to believe he was genuine and unlike us he looked into the whites of his eyes and in his own words 'interrogated' him. At this juncture it may not be possible to identify who Hutchinson really was.

[The Rookie Detective]

There are a lot of posts concerning Hutchinson. After reading as many as I could, I came to the conclusion that "Toppy" wasn't the Victoria home witness who gave his statement to Commercial Road station three days after Kelly's murder. A few of the key details do not match what we know.

Who was the real George Hutchinson? Short answer, no one actually knows. The fact our GH seemingly lived a transient lifestyle and had a fairly common name means he's a very troublesome man to pin down. These murders were three years before the 1891 census, and I understand there was no electoral register for 1888.

Most reports claim he was a groom but worked as a labourer at the time. He seems to be aged between 25-35 years old. He claims he was staying at The Victoria Home and walked all the way home from Romford (we actually do not know why he was in Romford - the sister thing seems to be a modern myth).

It's almost as tricky a starting position as Mary Jane Kelly herself.

George William Topping Hutchinson did have a sister called Jane.
His mother was also called Jane but died when he was young.

Based on the signature on his marriage certificate; when compared to the witness George Hutchinson's witness statements, i think they're indeed the same man. I may be wrong but think it may explain why he's proven so elusive.

The double 'P' on his middle name 'Topping' (his mother's maiden name) looks very similar tot he double 'P' in the word 'Ripper' from the author of the alleged JTR correspondences.

The double 'P' is emphasized to look like an 'M'.


Ant the reference to the marking 'M' has always been a topic of discussion.


Could the witness George Hutchinson be George William Topping Hutchinson and could he also be the author of the JTR letter signed 'Jack The Ripper?'

George Hutchinson has always come across as a bit of a fantasist and while the letters may NOT be from the killer, they are certainly the work of a person who fantasizes about being the killer.

A killer will often like to make themselves present after a crime and from a psychological standpoint, the killer may have wanted to get close to the investigation by appearing as a belated witness to proceedings after his greatest kill.

Could George Hutchinson be JTR?


He is one of the main witnesses whom we nothing about.. and maybe there's a reason for that.

[The Rookie Detective]

This is his signature from the marriage certificate of George William Topping Hutchinson...





To me, this signature looks very similar to at least one of the 3 signatures from the witness statement...

(RJPALMER uploaded a copy of George Hutchinon's signatures from his witness statement on another thread and I'm not sure if I'm permitted to do the same if he has already done it?)


I think this may be the same man


Another interesting point is this...

The word 'Topping' has a double 'P'... and this double 'P' looks very similar to the double 'P' from the alleged JTR correspondence where he signs 'Jack the Ri'PP'er.'


Have a look at the JTR ripper signature and compare it to the name Topper from the marriage certificate. They're not identical but certainly very similar.


Could this be the correct George Hutchinson and if so, could he have been the author of the alleged ripper letters?

If so, it doesn't make him the ripper, but certainly a fantasist.

Could the reason why the witness George Hutchinson has been so hard to find, is because he just doesn't fit with all our expectations?

George William Topping Hutchinson was living in Mile End Road when he got married in 1898. So at least we know this George Hutchinson was in the East End (even though it's a decade later)

I think George William Topping Hutchinson is the same man as our witness George Hutchinson.

Topping was his mother's maiden name and he only used it on his marriage certificate.

What's interesting is that his mother Jane Hutchison (nee Topping) died when George was young.

His father was also called George Hutchinson and was also a plumber, as was his father.


If George William Topping Hutchinson is the same man, then could the name 'Topping' be more significant in terms of the ripper letters? I have always wondered why he signed it 'Jack the Ripper,' and have always believed that there was a clue there somewhere. Could the double 'P' be the clue?

'Topping' and 'Ripper'

If someone who is more tech-savvy than me is able to upload a picture of JTR signature 'Jack the Ripper' and display it next to the name 'Topping' from George Hutchinson's marriage certificate, then we can all compare what I am referring to.


Of course, if the signature from his marriage certificate doesn't match the signatures from the witness statements, then he his a red herring.

But i believe that we have found the right man based on those signature comparisons.


Thoughts?

[The Rookie Detective]

Thank you kindly everyone for your comments and guidance. I will take some time today and have a look and start from the link you have sent as my starting point. I'm not quite sure why I have never favoured him and aside from his testimony, I have never taken time to delve deeper. Based on your comments it would appear that he will be extremely difficult to find...but I love a challenge.

Many thanks


TRD

[erobitha]

There are a lot of posts concerning Hutchinson. After reading as many as I could, I came to the conclusion that "Toppy" wasn't the Victoria home witness who gave his statement to Commercial Road station three days after Kelly's murder. A few of the key details do not match what we know.

Who was the real George Hutchinson? Short answer, no one actually knows. The fact our GH seemingly lived a transient lifestyle and had a fairly common name means he's a very troublesome man to pin down. These murders were three years before the 1891 census, and I understand there was no electoral register for 1888.

Most reports claim he was a groom but worked as a labourer at the time. He seems to be aged between 25-35 years old. He claims he was staying at The Victoria Home and walked all the way home from Romford (we actually do not know why he was in Romford - the sister thing seems to be a modern myth).

It's almost as tricky a starting position as Mary Jane Kelly herself.

[mpriestnall]

Hi RD, have you look at this thread?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/hutchinson-george/6312-george-william-topping-hutchinson-records#post274976