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:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Trevor Marriott 14 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 28 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 44 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Abby Normal 55 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (113 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (12 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
Bury, W.H.: The Spooners - (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
  #881  
Old 07-30-2018, 06:45 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Hi RJ,

I do love the way you continue to refer to my arguments as “unconvincing”, as though I had the remotest hope in hell of wresting away your apparently long held investment in Tumblety as the ripper by “convincing” you of someone else’s guilt.

I would obviously expect nothing less than total opposition to any attempt to “fit up Georgie” from anyone who believes the ostentatiously attired quack herbalist was the miscreant, and yet these days - and please don’t take this as an incendiary observation - the Tumbleyites do seem to be in a distinct minority in comparison to those who believe Hutchinson has a case to answer as a probable fibber, if not a serial killer.

I don’t know if Hutchinson was the killer, but there are strong indications that he was observed near a crime scene and later lied about his reasons for being there. No, it doesn’t automatically a slasher make, but it does make him the best of a less than perfect bunch, to my mind.

Anyway, moving on, why did Hutchinson claim to have waited 45 minutes? Well, one obvious answer is that he did precisely that, and admitted as much to allow for the possibility of other witnesses having seen him besides Lewis. Better to “legitimise” his presence for the full length of his vigil, rather than pretend he was there for a shorter period and risk being countered and exposed by yet another witness.

Quote:
If the impetus for GH coming forward was the brief sighting by Sarah Lewis, which you claim it was, he could have told Badham that he had walked all day, was shut out for the night, was tired and rested a few minutes, and then moved on. Full stop
Not at all.

If Hutchinson’s intention was to vindicate his presence at the crime scene whilst simultaneously deflecting suspicion in a convenient Jewish direction, the above explanation would only have met one of those criteria. In addition, it would obviously have helped cement Astrakhan’s credentials as the likely ripper if Hutchinson could help “place” him in Kelly’s room for just the right amount of time to render unlikely the chances of anyone else arriving at Kelly’s doorstep. The likely impression Hutchinson sought to convey was “he was in there for a 45 minute, and he was still there when I left, so he was evidently staying there”.

It’s all very well suggesting that Hutchinson was permitted to “guess” the colour of the handkerchief - on the grounds, we are told, that red was such a common colour for handkerchiefs in those days (so was dark hair - maybe he guessed that too?). But we’re stretching credulity yet further now with the suggestion that he was able to discern an actual pattern on a tiny garment, at night time, from 120 feet away, with a little flame for illumination.

This is quite clearly impossible.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 07-30-2018 at 06:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 07-30-2018, 06:54 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
“I think your view of a particular dress code required for personal safety in Whitechapel is more born of fiction than reality”
You think what you like, Jon. I can only urge common sense and seek to impress the bleedin’ obvious upon the frighteningly obstinate so many times.

I have no intention of reporting you to anyone. You quoted me correctly and I stand fully by my observation; Isaacs did not have the means to pull off anything like an “Astrakhan” level of apparent opulence, which is why his efforts were easily exposed as bogus and presumably laughed at.

As for the crowds outside the court, we can always start you off with this from your nemesis, The Echo:

At no inquest held in Whitechapel upon any of the victims of the East-end murderer has there been so much public interest shown, for from fully an hour before the announced time of holding the inquiry little knots of spectators, many unconnected with the case, gathered in front of the Shoreditch Town-hall, where the proceedings were opened by DR. MacDonald, touching the death of Mary Janet Kelly.

So your claim that Hutchinson would have been “all alone” if he was briefly in the vicinity of the town hall prior to the inquest, is instantly proven false, much like your “passing up the court” couple, like “Isaacstrakhan”. The list goes on...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 07-30-2018, 06:57 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

All I ask is that you at least have a bash at a vaguely credible explanation for Hutchinson’s failure to secure lodgings anywhere in the east end, despite having funds to pay for them; and why, if he was so intent on avoiding anywhere other than his “usual lodgings”, did he walk all those miles home in the certain knowledge that he would have missed closing time by one hour.

Quote:
He said he walked the streets all night, ie; homeless. Is that too complex?
It makes no sense for him to have “walked about all night” if he had money to pay for lodgings at one of the hundreds of homes still open in the area. Is that too complex?

If Hutchinson had truly alerted a PC, and that PC had truly informed his superiors about it, what do you suggest went so terribly wrong that the police hierarchy only learned of Hutchinson’s existence when he came forward at 6.00pm on the 12th?

Quote:
Witnesses in murder cases don't always come forward - live with it.
Move on to the next argument
Yes, but the evidence in this case suggests that the “witness” would not have come forward at all had he not been seen.

I’ll “move on to the next argument” when you do, Jon, and not a second before.

Quote:
25 ft Ben, you're shameless attempt to exaggerate a detail to try win another argument is well known by all the regulars.
120 feet, actually.

I refer to the distance between the corner of Commercial/Dorset Street (Hutchinson) and the entrance to Miller’s Court (Kelly/Astrakhan).

It’s always fun, though, when you pretentiously invoke “all the regulars”.

A handkerchief is not going to be on display underneath a jacket and overcoat, Jon. Not even Hutchinson made such a claim.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 07-31-2018, 12:36 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Not compulsory Joshua, no.
There are a good number of British soldier group photo's from the 19th century and while the moustache was popular, it was not worn by every soldier.
Well you're right, sort of. In that technically it was forbidden to shave the upper lip, it would be impossible to force a moustache to grow.
Excuse the Wikipedia reference, I have read it somewhere more authoritative but this seems to cover it succinctly;

"After the Crimean war, regulations were introduced that prevented serving soldiers of all ranks from shaving above their top lip, in essence making moustaches compulsory for those who could grow them, although beards were later forbidden. This remained in place until 1916, when the regulation was abolished by an Army Order dated 6 October 1916. It was issued by Nevil Macready, Adjutant-General to the Forces, who loathed his own moustache and immediately shaved it off. However, there is considerable evidence in photographs and film footage that the earlier regulations were widely ignored and that many British soldiers of all ranks were clean-shaven even before 1916. This was often because the penalty for not growing a moustache was rarely enforced, as it wouldn't hold in military court for court-martialling."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 07-31-2018, 05:08 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi RJ,

It’s not impossible that I’ve confused the year. It’s been a while since I looked at the Green River case. Apologies if so.

John Douglas had the following to say on Ridgway’s “proactive technique”:

"...We indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."


Apparently the victim in question was Carol Ann Christensen who did, as it would later transpire, know Ridgeway personally.

I concede a difference with the Hutchinson scenario insofar as Ridgway was already known to the police when he came forward, whereas Hutchinson ostensibly was not. Far more significant to my mind, however, are the similarities; injecting himself into the investigation, and knowing the deceased personally, the latter’s body having been “posed differently to the others”.

Ridgeway was motivated into coming forward because he feared an incriminating link being made between himself and the victim, just as several authors have proposed with regard to Hutchinson and Kelly.

All the best,
Ben
Hi Ben,

In Hutch's case, the only possible way for any such 'incriminating link' to ever be made would be if he had been careless enough to allow his face to be seen clearly while he was waiting to enter the room of this woman he knew personally, for the purpose of murdering her and posing her differently from the others! He had only to keep his head down a bit in the darkness, with his hat down over his hair and facial features, and no bugger alive could have sworn to him again. If he'd killed several times in recent weeks, do you seriously imagine he'd have failed to take this simplest of measures to avoid the risk of even the nosiest witness being able to describe him, let alone point him out at a future time, if he really had no choice but to hang out near Dorset Street in the days and weeks after doing the deed?

How did he know, in 1888, that injecting himself into the investigation and putting himself so close to the murder scene of a woman he knew personally, would actually be safer than not doing so? And why would he think that, given there was virtually nothing in those days that could get him buckled, unless he was caught red-handed or while trying to flee the scene, with the evidence still on his person?

The next best thing the police could hope for, with very little chance of a confession, was to have the wanted man in front of them, tripping himself up during questioning or telling a pack of obvious lies. In 1888, it would be a fine line between brave and foolhardy for any criminal to put himself in that position voluntarily when he should have had absolutely no need if he'd been just that little bit smarter on the night.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 07-31-2018 at 05:10 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 07-31-2018, 05:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
And, of course, Ridgway’s behavior bears not even the slightest similarity to what you are suggesting Hutchinson did.

We are asked to believe that George Hutchinson boldly walked in the front door of a police station out of the blue, plopped himself in a chair, threw his shoulders back, asked to see a detective, and then told them in no uncertain terms that he spent 45 minutes outside the worst crime scene in modern UK history.

That’s not injection. That’s injection on steroids.

I’m seeing nothing even remotely similar in the cases of Chikatilo, Sutcliffe, Ridgway, or Shawcross.

It’s more like a scenario out of a Hollywood “serial killer” film.
The whole Hutchinson theory is more Hollywood 1980s than Whitechapel 1880s.

I don't believe serial killers have changed in character that much over time, but their behaviour will change according to what they need to do - or not do - in order to stay one step ahead of the cops. In the 1880s that meant doing very little apart from keeping their head well down.

The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:00 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,295
Default

But guilty or innocent, that’s exactly what Hutchinson DID do. Whether he was after a nice little earner or trying to throw off the police, he implicated himself at a crime scene when he needn’t have.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:11 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.
And not just forensics, but other technical advances like surveillance cameras and identikits, and subtle "innovations" like more distinctive clothing (and haircuts!), greater social cohesion, lower population density, etc, all of which make it easier to identify a given individual and/or narrow down potential suspects.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:34 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
The whole Hutchinson theory is more Hollywood 1980s than Whitechapel 1880s.

I don't believe serial killers have changed in character that much over time, but their behaviour will change according to what they need to do - or not do - in order to stay one step ahead of the cops. In the 1880s that meant doing very little apart from keeping their head well down.

The perceived need for 'injecting' themselves would surely have come as forensic evidence became more sophisticated and they could no longer vanish so easily off the radar.

Love,

Caz
X
it was risky to come forward either way-even as an innocent witness-placing himself at the scene of the crime lurking, admitting he knew her and where she lived, no alibi. you would think with that potential suspicion he would have not come forward either.
__________________
"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
  #890  
Old 07-31-2018, 06:35 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
But guilty or innocent, that’s exactly what Hutchinson DID do. Whether he was after a nice little earner or trying to throw off the police, he implicated himself at a crime scene when he needn’t have.
bingo-I just posted the same thing before I saw this!
__________________
"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 05:17 PM.


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