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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Joshua Rogan 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Batman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by DJA 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (6 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (2 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
  #1151  
Old 08-09-2018, 05:26 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I find that interesting in that by the 14th, the Inquest transcripts were well known and within those documents there is nothing to suggest Mary left her room after 11:45pm Thursday.
I can't see any benefit in "attention seekers" inventing a story that contradicts the known facts from the inquest.

The more likely scenario, in my opinion, the police had not spoken with all the residents on the day of the murder.
This return visit to Millers Court was initiated by Hutchinson's story. The police had to make sure by returning to those same residents and questioning all of them this time.

Quote:
Surely those 53 accounts you mention contain some repetitive statements, varying as they are retold.
They were witness statements, so several of them might concern the same 'suspect'.

Quote:
There was no law preventing them from re-opening the Inquest I believe, and if good solid evidence surfaced after the original proceeding, I cant see why they wouldn't have re-opened it later.
It isn't a case of the law. A second inquest was avoided already by Macdonald doing what he did. The Coroner's Act tends to agree with what Macdonald did, the article in the newspaper had it wrong.


Quote:
Get George to face a few courtyard witnesses, pursue the witnesses claims that they saw Mary out with someone "between 2 and 3", and maybe find someone who knows more about the cry out at about 3:45am, all relevant data in determining her likely TOD and any vetted, viable, potential suspects.
George doesn't have to face anybody, he's a witness not a suspect. All a second inquest would do is compare his sighting with that of others.
The end result would have been the same because the original inquest determined nothing, except that Kelly was dead.
Even if they determine she was out after 1:00, they still have no time of death, and no identifiable suspect.

Quote:
Why another story comes out on the 14th is one issue you cant overcome Jon, why is George Hutchinson or/and his story "discredited"?
(Psst! - it was the 15th Michael)

That story has already been shown to be bogus, not by me, but by the subsequent press reports on the 19th of a continuing investigation of the Astrachan suspect.
The police do not investigate "discredited" stories, never have and never will.
Did the police continue investigating Packers "discredited" grape story? - No!

I know a number of posters are in denial about this, that is one of the pitfalls of a closed mind. They decide what they want to believe and nothing can shake that conviction - not even common sense.
The police were still looking for Astrachan 4 days after that bogus "discredited" claim by the Star. How embarrassing for them!

The Star didn't even stand by their own claim, the very next day (16th), they published the Gallowey story where they wrote the policeman was looking "for a man of a very different appearance" (different to Blotchy).
As there were only two prime suspects - Astrachan & Blotchy, the implication is obvious.
So how's that for backpeddling!
One day his story is discredited, the next day it is under investigation again!
You need a theory a bit more stable than that Michael.

Quote:
53 supporting witness accounts? Although none see him, do they?
Which 'him' do you mean, G.H. or Astrachan?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 08-09-2018 at 05:35 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 08-09-2018, 05:51 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
So.. Purloined or Special Branch?
I will plump for No. 2, because of the Anderson connection.

Just my thoughts on the matter, for what anyone thinks they are worth.

Regards
Phil
Hello Phil.

Thankyou for your input.

I have trouble with including the SB in this murder. Whereas we know much was either thrown away, used for other purposes, or purloined.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 08-09-2018, 06:03 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

I just saw this....
Ben, good grief, you can't be serious!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
No, not in the eyes of the press - in the eyes of the authorities. Look:

”Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”
The "authorities" have already sat down with Hutchinson, they know his story. They also know why he didn't come forward (Abberline is not going to believe him without know this), but the police are not prepared to make the reason public.
It is the Echo who do not know the reason, so they assume the police also do not know by offering that poor excuse for theatrics.
It's only theatrics Ben. You seriously think Abberline sat there gazing into space musing "I wonder why he didn't come forward".
If that's what you truly think your theory is in worse shape than I first thought.

Dear, oh dear Ben, that is a terrible argument.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:56 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Hello Phil.

Thankyou for your input.

I have trouble with including the SB in this murder. Whereas we know much was either thrown away, used for other purposes, or purloined.
Hello Jon,

Thank you for your comment.

I have to disagree with yours however. Robert Anderson's involvement in asking "outside sources" (Bond) to come in and oversee/deliberate in the Kelly affair and afterwards is one indication.
The second is the Irish connection.. Not only to the purported victim herself, but the reported fact that the Irish constabulary were present, and the background of certain other players in the field around 13 Millers Court.
Thirdly, the fact that we know through the ledgers of SB involvement in the case.

It is without question that should there have been SB involvement, papers and documents would most certainly have been passed on to them by Scotland Yard.

Even then, uniformed policemen didn't take too kindly to Special Branch barging in and taking over parts of any inquiry. Much like today. And that resentment still happens in this day and age.

Robert Anderson was on quite a power trip...brcause of Warren's resignation amongst other things. There was a power gap. Robert Anderson ran SB as far as I know. And it seems that his going awol previously, having been given the job of supervising the Whitechapel Murders investigation, indicate to me at least him pushing his weight around after the Millers Court debacle.


As I said. 53 statements isn't a likely made up figure. Nor a typo. Someone told the Echo that total. Police or witness statements or both... They went missing. Not in the Kelly file...which was sparse as per Stephen Knight.

Find out with all certainty where the Bond report actually came from when returned, and you may find out where those 53 statements went IF.... If they were purloined.
Along with the pukka autopsy report by Phillips.



Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:27 PM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Excuse me for asking, but what makes you think we should know who was mentioned on those statements?
Fleming may be mentioned on some of them, and possibly the Britannia-man on others.
We don't know over what time window these 'suspects were seen with Kelly, her final 24 or 48 hours, or longer?
Quite possibly they mention suspects completely new to us.
Sorry Wick but to my mind in your post-1127 you say - We know from a variety of sources that the police did not share the details of their investigation with the press. So, the question is, how many of those "fifty-three" were sightings of Astrachan by other witnesses?
Do I hear - "None"?

As the police are not sharing the details, how would we know?
How would the press at the time know?
The honest answer is, they wouldn't know.
Why was Abberline so sure about Hutchinson's story being believable?

Here is a clue.

On the morning of the 13th, before Hutchinson's press statement was even taken, never mind published, we read of a Police Notice widely published (sold) by the Press Association.

This is from the Times, in it's entirety.
The last sentence, in bold, is most telling.

The police yesterday evening received an important piece of information. A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased, stated that on the morning of the 9th inst. he saw her in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (near where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His appearance contrasted so markedly with that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.

This Notice appears in at least 25+ newspapers that I have located. The description portion is the official police telegram. The information added both before and after the description is by the Press Association.

There is nothing in any newspapers that suggests any other witnesses saw & described Astrachan. So that last sentence is not press gossip. As all the information provided by the Press Assoc. in that official release came from the police, then this last sentence must also be from the same official source.

This is the only sure, official statement, that Astrachan was indeed seen by other witnesses. A fact the police did not share with the media.
That to me suggests you think most of these witnesses saw Astrachan?
_Is that right or not? Because if it is how come none of these witnesses made a statement at the inquest before hutch came forward, the police wouldn't know they had a star witness waiting in the wings. Remember no descriptions where circulated of Astrachan or indeed hutch[who was tailing them],apart from a vague description by Sarah Lewis [if indeed it was hutch]. To my mind if these 53 witnesses did exist they yes you are right in saying they did see Mary [or someone they thought was her], with different males a day or two before her murder but it is unlikely [again to my mind], that any at all saw her with Astrachan with hutch following them behind at such a crucial time or they would have been asked to appear at the inquest.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:32 PM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 341
Default

Following on from my last post if anyone of these 53 witnesses only saw a brief glimpse of a man and a woman walking up Commercial st and not much of a description, so not called at the inquest. How do we know it was indeed Mary?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:00 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 341
Default

To be fair maybe Mary was seen in the company of a well-dressed man on, say a couple of occasions a day or two before she was murdered. Who could match an outline of Astrachan, which may have swayed Abberline into believing Hutch was telling the truth.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:52 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,400
Default

Jon,

I would liken George Hutchinson to Israel Schwartz in terms of their value in their respective cases. Each was touted in print much later on after the statements were given, I believe Israel was still being talked about as very viable in the Police Gazette weeks after the statement was given. Yet his story, in any format, is absent from a proceeding where its content would have been extremely germane to the question at hand. His statement preceded the Inquest.

The comments made by ground level policemen, bureaucrats and Senior Intelligence and Espionage staffers very rarely match in these cases, in fact we have just about every opinion on what was, and what did, happen that Fall. Is it that they did not share a common knowledge or position on the cases, or maybe that they gave comments that were really helpful to themselves?
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 08-10-2018, 03:10 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default

Hello all,

I am going to add this.. And add a possible conclusion.

We are told that GH knew MJK. We are told this by GH himself. Right.

Now women, when drinking, talk... About men.
There were hundreds of reporters around Dorset Street trying to pick up on any crumbs they could find, even after the GH statement.
Not one woman stated anything about GH. NOT ONE. Kelly's friends would know of him, word of mouth. But nobody made any statement about GH in any way at any time. That tells me Kelly didn't mention him.. To anyone.

Conclusion...

What type of man does a woman never mention? What type of person likes to stay anonymous?

A grass doesn't tell anyone about a contact.
Ever. Irish. Informant... Not hard to believe is it.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 08-10-2018, 04:06 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
To be fair maybe Mary was seen in the company of a well-dressed man on, say a couple of occasions a day or two before she was murdered. Who could match an outline of Astrachan, which may have swayed Abberline into believing Hutch was telling the truth.
Hi darryl
I would suggest that What swayed Abberline into beleivimg hutch, at least initially, was that he had just come from the inquest where he heard sarah lewis describe waiting watching man, and then in he strolls to the police station.
__________________
"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 05:39 PM.


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