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:
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Elamarna 23 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Joshua Rogan 24 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Elamarna 39 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Elamarna 42 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Jon Guy 43 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Elamarna 43 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (45 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (25 posts)
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (13 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Bury's friend - (2 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (1 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
  #561  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:11 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
We only have Hutchinson's account that it was him standing in the doorway of the lodging house. As far as I am aware Sarah Lewis never identified him, and only gave an outline description of the man she saw.
Consider this, the Maxwells were looking after Crossinghams at night but they didn't see him loitering there, [Best part of an hour]. Nor did any of the residents, and there must have been dozens [at least] sleeping that particular night, any one of them plus Henry Maxwell could have been the person seen in the doorway [don't forget he was only seen for a couple of minutes, not an hour]. Plus what time did the Lodging house shut its doors? I have read on this thread that they generally stopped open till 4 am, Hutch was there between 2 and 3. Apologies if I am wrong here but wasn't Mcarthy's shop generally open till 3 in the morning as well? That was directly across the road from Hutch's vantage point. We have to consider Mary as well. We know she was the worst for wear with the drink a couple of hours earlier and according to Cox could hardly say goodnight. Would she really go back out down Whitechapel after 1 am in that state on a wet night? Plus nobody seems to have heard or seen her go out either, door shutting etc
Hi DK
IMHO she didnt go out again after blotchy
She was very drunk
She had a full belly
More beer in the pale
She may have had some money from blotchy
sShe seemed content and comfortable with blotchy, hanging out
Warm fire
Nasty night
No other night time sightings once she enters with blotchy

If blotchy didnt kill her then i think hutch did.

She was described by being with four men that night- barnett, blotchy, hutch and Aman
I think more than likely one of these men were her killer, instead of some phantom no one saw that night man.

barnett was cleared and had an alibi.
Aman was probably fiction
That leaves blotchy and hutch and ive got them suspects 1 and 1a for the ripper.
__________________
"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
  #562  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:20 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Sometimes we don't appreciate just how trivial the "cry of murder" could be in the East End, until we see examples.....



The truth of why this cry was heard is revealed at the end of the article...



So, when the inhabitants are known to use such a cry as a ruse to get attention, why should we assume such a cry actually meant, "murder"?
And, more to the point, why would the actual inhabitants of the East End think this had to be the case?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:33 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,857
Default

RJ
You have been answered by other posters,but I will write what I suspect.It is that the majority of Hutchinson's statement is false.There is no corobberation.AM,the trip to Romford,the waiting for three quarters of an hour outside Crossinghams,the walking the streets.Where is the proof? The evidence of Lewis is that a man was stood there about 2.30.It did not contain evidence of how long he had been there before she saw him,or how long afterwards he remained.
A woman was found murdered in a room no more than about 20 yards from where that man stood.Medical evidence reported she could have been killed early that morning.No one else can be placed by information,in a more oportunist position,except the person seen by Cox.That man and Hutchinson could have been one and the same.

As I said,mine are only suspicions,or to put it another way,Opinions.I could be wrong,but on the basis of possibilities,I may be correct
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 07-22-2018, 06:43 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
RJ
You have been answered by other posters,but I will write what I suspect.It is that the majority of Hutchinson's statement is false.There is no corobberation.AM,the trip to Romford,the waiting for three quarters of an hour outside Crossinghams,the walking the streets.Where is the proof? The evidence of Lewis is that a man was stood there about 2.30.It did not contain evidence of how long he had been there before she saw him,or how long afterwards he remained.
A woman was found murdered in a room no more than about 20 yards from where that man stood.Medical evidence reported she could have been killed early that morning.No one else can be placed by information,in a more oportunist position,except the person seen by Cox.That man and Hutchinson could have been one and the same.

As I said,mine are only suspicions,or to put it another way,Opinions.I could be wrong,but on the basis of possibilities,I may be correct
Hi harry
You mean sarah lewis not cox? Lewis saw the waiting man (hutch). COx saw mary with blotchy
__________________
"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
  #565  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:46 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
RJ
You have been answered by other posters,but I will write what I suspect.It is that the majority of Hutchinson's statement is false.There is no corobberation.AM,the trip to Romford,the waiting for three quarters of an hour outside Crossinghams,the walking the streets.Where is the proof?
There's an interesting paragraph in the Times of 12th Nov., it gives a little overview of the degree of work taken up by the detectives.

"Detective-Inspectors Reid, Moore, and Nairn, and Sergeants Thicke, Godley, M'Carthy, and Pearce have been constantly engaged, under the direction of Inspector Abberline (Scotland-yard), in prosecuting inquiries, but, unfortunately, up to the present time without any practical result. As an instance of the magnitude of their labours, each officer has had, on average, during the last six weeks to make some 30 separate inquiries weekly, and these have had to be made in different portions of the metropolis and suburbs."

Would you agree that this paperwork will comprise of evidence in the murder case?
Where do you suppose all that paperwork is today?
You ask, "where is the proof?".
Why do you think it should have survived?

Quote:
The evidence of Lewis is that a man was stood there about 2.30.It did not contain evidence of how long he had been there before she saw him,or how long afterwards he remained.
Why should it, Lewis was just passing through.

Quote:
A woman was found murdered in a room no more than about 20 yards from where that man stood.Medical evidence reported she could have been killed early that morning.No one else can be placed by information,in a more oportunist position,except the person seen by Cox.That man and Hutchinson could have been one and the same.
Certainly, but as is often the case with charges against Hutchinson, they all stem from a lack of evidence. Yet, legitimate theories come from the known evidence (if you have been in the police, you will already know this).
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:09 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 421
Default

Hi Harry. Thanks for your response and I have always appreciated your no-nonsense approach.

Yes, you are quite right. Everyone who has responded is correct. As far as we know, there is no independent evidence that Hutchinson actually lingered across from the court for 45-50 minutes.

But this is precisely what has always worried me about Bob Hinton’s theory!

How did Hutchinson know this?

If he wasn’t lingering for 45 minutes, how did he know he was ‘in the clear’ to claim that he had been?

Do you see what I mean?

And, similarly, if he hadn’t been, why even add this unnecessary “false” detail in his statement, if it served no purpose in implicating Astrakhan?

Because, if anything, it would have left him open to being exposed, and would have unnecessarily implicated himself as a potential suspect.

If Hutchinson wasn’t there for 45 minutes, anything could have happened in his absence. An unexpected plainclothes cop could have walked past. A couple of drunken night birds could have rolled in and pounded on the door of Crossinghams for 10 minutes until they were told to leave.

It makes no sense that Hutch would add a risky detail that he had no way of knowing was ‘safe.’

At least as I see it.

Yet there it is in his statement.

If he’s lying--and I am part of the minority that doesn't think he is--this strangely self-implicating detail must have served some other purpose. But I’m not seeing Hinton or anyone else address it. That’s why I posed the question.

By contrast, I am impressed that Wickerman is trying to see these events in “real time” and even tries to get inside Hutchinson’s head to explain his subsequent actions. A useful discussion. Thanks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:18 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
According to the Morning Advertiser;

"The court is being held in a small committee-room on the ground floor, a place altogether inadequate for so important an inquiry."

There are three committee rooms on the link I posted earlier: large, medium and small.
The Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. offers a few small details of the room where the inquest was held.
"...a green-walled, square, little room".

__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:21 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 421
Default

Hi Ben,

I don’t want to repeat myself, so I will just humbly suggest that you reread Keppel.

Ridgway couldn’t have “injected” himself into the investigation in March 1984 because he WAS the investigation in March 1984. The police had previously initiated contact with him four times and gave him a polygraph.

Any reasonable definition of “injecting” oneself into an investigation, as it relates to Hutchinson, would involve someone off the radar coming forward and trying to insinuate themselves into the investigation in a significant way, thus risking drawing attention to themselves.

Current suspects need not apply. So, personally, I reject Ridgway as a useful comparison. Ditto Chikatilo.

Every witness to come forward to contact the police is injecting himself into an investigation. 100% of the time.

What similar % can you give for murderers coming forward? 1%? 8%? 0.03%?

What worries me about profilers like Douglas is they always use anecdotal evidence, and almost none of it is open to independent verification. That worries me, and I would hope that it worries you.

Too many blanket statements. Too many claims without hard data. But I will leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation. Cheers.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 07-22-2018, 11:14 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Are you kidding, the guy has been up all night walking the streets. As soon as the Victoria Home opened, his new lodgings, he crashed until late afternoon.....
Why not go to the police station that evening, then?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 07-23-2018, 02:13 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Hi Harry. Thanks for your response and I have always appreciated your no-nonsense approach.

Yes, you are quite right. Everyone who has responded is correct. As far as we know, there is no independent evidence that Hutchinson actually lingered across from the court for 45-50 minutes.

But this is precisely what has always worried me about Bob Hinton’s theory!

How did Hutchinson know this?

If he wasn’t lingering for 45 minutes, how did he know he was ‘in the clear’ to claim that he had been?

Do you see what I mean?

And, similarly, if he hadn’t been, why even add this unnecessary “false” detail in his statement, if it served no purpose in implicating Astrakhan?

Because, if anything, it would have left him open to being exposed, and would have unnecessarily implicated himself as a potential suspect.

If Hutchinson wasn’t there for 45 minutes, anything could have happened in his absence. An unexpected plainclothes cop could have walked past. A couple of drunken night birds could have rolled in and pounded on the door of Crossinghams for 10 minutes until they were told to leave.

It makes no sense that Hutch would add a risky detail that he had no way of knowing was ‘safe.’

At least as I see it.

Yet there it is in his statement.

If he’s lying--and I am part of the minority that doesn't think he is--this strangely self-implicating detail must have served some other purpose. But I’m not seeing Hinton or anyone else address it. That’s why I posed the question.

By contrast, I am impressed that Wickerman is trying to see these events in “real time” and even tries to get inside Hutchinson’s head to explain his subsequent actions. A useful discussion. Thanks.
he said he was there for 45 minutes because he was there. waiting for Mary to come home or perhaps for her guest to leave who was probably blotchy. aman didn't exist.
__________________
"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
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 06:08 AM.


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