Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 35 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (8 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (5 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #341  
Old 07-17-2018, 06:56 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
No obvious reason? Wherefore your namesake, Matthew Packer, and other would-be witnesses with exaggerated or made-up stories?
Completely different I'm afraid.
Packer was selling fruit from his window and genuine reason for being there with his wife as witness .
Hutchinson had no alibi ...... at all .
If he was to be believed he was quite probably the last person to see her alive , with a ridiculous tale to tell , for no reason .This isn't debatable witness with a genuine reason for being around ,this was putting yourself in the line of fire and with no possible Alibi to come to the rescue so why on earth would anyone take such a massive risk ?
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 07-17-2018, 06:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .
I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The fact is he didn't become prime suspect.

He didn't become a suspect at all - even after blabbing to the papers.

I don't think he'd have done that, or would ever have come forward, if he had the slightest reason to think the police might not only want to check him out more thoroughly, but might be right to do so.

I think the real killer got away with it by not showing his face to any potential witnesses, because he needed to show his face to the police and newspaper reporters like he needed a hole in his head.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 07-17-2018, 07:10 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Abby,

I tend to agree, or at least I think it's entirely plausible.

Serial killers will always try to shift the blame onto others for the evil they do themselves, whether it's their overbearing mother, a cheating girlfriend, a prostitute with the clap, or even his latest victim, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time - all of which may translate to a chronic problem with womankind in general. Alternatively it can be a whole group of men, in this case the Jews, who are creating temporary obstacles for him, real or imagined, as he goes round the victim-rich streets of Whitechapel seeking opportunities to vent.

Easy to see how Jack could have slipped naturally into bigotry if not Jewish himself. Anyone not like him, or not seeing the world the way he saw it, could have got in the way and become a target for his own demons. And the Jews, IMHO, were just a convenient presence to be targeted. He might even have deluded himself into thinking the non-Jewish community would be on his side if he took a pop at them, while 'cleaning the streets' of bad women, as the Yorkshire Ripper tried to claim he was doing. Blame shifting again.

I can't, however, see anything in the evidence to suggest Hutch had anything to do with the murders. If he saw a flash, Jewish looking man being picked up by Kelly, that's what he saw. It doesn't automatically make him a liar, a bigot or a suspect for the murders himself. And as Abberline believed him, I'd need some strong evidence that he was full of it.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz'good post and pretty much agree with everything you say except:

Quote:
I can't, however, see anything in the evidence to suggest Hutch had anything to do with the murders. If he saw a flash, Jewish looking man being picked up by Kelly, that's what he saw. It doesn't automatically make him a liar, a bigot or a suspect for the murders himself. And as Abberline believed him, I'd need some strong evidence that he was full of it.
He was there, he engaged in stalking behavior, he has an unbeleivable suspect/story, he waits till the inquest is over to come forward. he has no alibi. His jewish suspect is the only jewish implication/evidence other than the night of the double event-hes the only witness to dirctly implicate a jew.


Is it really so crazy a theory that hutch as the ripper, knows mary,even casually as someone who lives in the immediate area and knows prostitutes, maybe even has heard she is recently single (hes staying a stones throw away in the victoria house) and is keeping an eye out for her. maybe goes by her place? shes occupied, so he waits a while. leaves, comes back to find her guest is gone-you know the rest.

later worries he may have been spotted-so comes forward as a witness-better than being sought out as a suspect. And runs with the jewish suspect angle?


It all ties together logically for me.


yes Abberline apparently beleived him. But..but. He "interogates" him so perhaps there is initial suspician. but is hoodwinked by the hope that hutch can be a stellar witness that helps him catch the ripper. and then not much later the accounts that hutch is discredited.
Abberline wouldnt be the first good cop who has been fooled by a criminal-they tend to be good liars.


anyway its enough for me to think hutch is a the best of a bad bunch of suspects.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 07-17-2018, 07:16 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
Completely different I'm afraid.
Packer was selling fruit from his window and genuine reason for being there with his wife as witness .
Hutchinson had no alibi ...... at all .
If he was to be believed he was quite probably the last person to see her alive , with a ridiculous tale to tell , for no reason .This isn't debatable witness with a genuine reason for being around ,this was putting yourself in the line of fire and with no possible Alibi to come to the rescue so why on earth would anyone take such a massive risk ?
serial killers are nothing if not risk takers.

But I agree with you-most would stay away. IMHO its a check mark against hutch as a viable suspect.


nevertheless, not enough to discount him let alone clear him. and hes got enough other red flags.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:54 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
What is never satisfactorily explained regarding the whole Hutchinson episode is why ?
If a man called Hutchinson did genuinely call in just after 6 on the 12th then he puts himself in the spotlight for no reason whatsoever and becomes prime suspect through choice .
In those days the public did not get their information from the police, but from the press. So it doesn't matter what we read about police theories or what the police knew. It is what was written in the press that the public believed, meaning, Hutchinson.

And, in the press, all over that first weekend the vast majority of newspaper stories reported the Maxwell/Lewis evidence as significant. Some even going so far as to announce the murder took place after 9:00 am Friday morning.

Hutchinson only saw Kelly 6-7 hours before that, so obviously in his mind what he saw had nothing to do with a murder that took place after 9:00 am.
Reason enough for him not bothering to come forward.

Why did he change his mind then?
The Star in their early afternoon edition on Monday, the day of the inquest, reported Cox had seen the murderer, with the subtitle - The Murderer Described, above her testimony.

Hutchinson, on learning this, and discussing his sighting with a fellow lodger, would know the claim was not true. Also, he likely assumed this was official opinion, so on the advice of his fellow lodger, off to the police he went.

Why does his role in this drama need to be any more suspicious than that?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 07-17-2018 at 10:06 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:17 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
And, in the press, all over that first weekend the vast majority of newspaper stories reported the Maxwell/Lewis evidence as significant. Some even going so far as to announce the murder took place after 9:00 am Friday morning.

Hutchinson only saw Kelly 6-7 hours before that, so obviously in his mind what he saw had nothing to do with a murder that took place after 9:00 am.
Reason enough for him not bothering to come forward.
Stories like those of "Mrs Kennedy" were circulating on the streets in the popular press as early as 10th November, which reported cries of murder around about two o'clock, around the same time as Hutch claimed to have seen Kelly enter her room with a man.

There may have been conflicting stories like Maurice Lewis's, often in the same papers, but the time of death was by no means established as 9AM or later. Hutchinson allegedly had made a definite had a sighting of whom he claimed to be a friend on the morning of her death, in the company of a strange man, in both senses of the word. There is no way that he would not have felt that this might have been of interest, if not importance, to the police.

I'm sorry, but the alternative doesn't cut any ice: "My pretty friend was murdered hours after I last saw her with a really creepy guy carrying a mysterious elongated parcel with a leather strap, so I won't bother telling the police about it". No way, José.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 07-17-2018, 10:39 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 434
Default

To me, the very existance of this thread amply demonstrates why a person would hesitate before coming forward and contacting the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:10 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Stories like those of "Mrs Kennedy" were circulating on the streets in the popular press as early as 10th November, which reported cries of murder around about two o'clock, around the same time as Hutch claimed to have seen Kelly enter her room with a man.
But Gareth, this is one story, not "stories".
Prater spoke to the press, she told them she heard nothing over night.
So, what impact does one story have when the vast majority of newspaper stories claim a murder after 9:00 am?
Taken together, doesn't this suggest Mrs Kennedy's "cry of murder" was just another false alarm, like so many witnesses believed?
Take the weight of the evidence Gareth, not one isolated case.

Quote:
There may have been conflicting stories like Maurice Lewis's, often in the same papers, but the time of death was by no means established as 9AM or later.
I said "reported", you say "established" - why is that?

It was widely reported Kelly was seen alive and well on the streets Friday morning. How does that compare with one "cry of murder" claim by one witness?
Especially, when it was common knowledge a "cry of murder" was just another way of drawing attention to some lesser crime.


Quote:
Hutchinson allegedly had made a definite had a sighting of whom he claimed to be a friend on the morning of her death,....
Please show me where Hutchinson claims Kelly was a friend?

Are you suggesting they were "friends" in order to make his failure to come forward more suspicious?
I suspect so, especially when you & I both know he never claimed she was a friend.

Think of how many people you know, and have known for years, yet how many could you call "a friend"?
"Occasionally, giving her a few shillings....", is only to be expected - she was a prostitute, not a friend.

Knowing someone, and being a friend, are not the same.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:19 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,599
Default

How did Sarah Lewis morph into the much publicised Mrs Kennedy and morph back again in time for the inquest?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:56 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
We have no idea the level of lighting, but Abberline did. So you choosing to argue that Hutch needed some special ability really exposes a level of bias.
Plenty of people have an eye for detail, you know it & I know it so pretending this must be another special ability does little to bolster your argument.
So long as his detailed description passed muster with professionals like Abberline & Stewart Evans, unprofessional opinions to the contrary are of little value.
I would say I'm in good company.
You are. There is also no escaping Abberline's written observation that he was "of opinion his (Hutchinson's) statement is true". (I know there is speculation that he later changed his mind but, if he did, he left no written record of it that we know of).

Abberline knew the area well and must have known the lighting conditions far better that we ever can. They did not prevent him from finding the account credible. I'm another (admittedly less illustrious) professional who takes the view that Hutchinson's account cannot be discredited on the basis that he noted details in adverse lighting conditions. He may have had his own good reasons for doing exactly that - and for waiting around for as long as he did.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.