|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 3:09 am: |       |
Dear Everyone,
Many thanks for your kind words, and Peter a large box of Kleenex would do for a start.
Kevin,
Yes I wasn't trying to be ambiguous its just the final part of the puzzle was contained in the 1901 census and we know how long that took to come out. I jumped the gun a bit there believing all the hype about it being available shortly!!
When it finally did come out I was tied up with other things and didn't manage to get round to it untill quite recently after being given a tremendous amount of help from someone called Neal Sheld (Sheldon) who very kindly sent me copies of Hutchinsons marriage certificate. After that it was a simple matter of going back to the original entry in the marriage register and comparing signatures.
With the best will in the world I could see they were different. Unless of course he was so shaken by what he had done to Mary Kelly that it changed his handwriting..........move over Diary!!
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 3:12 am: | |
Hell
I've spelled Neals name wrong it is of course Neal Shelden.
Sorry Neal
Bob |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 10:31 am: | |
Hi Bob,
No worries about the spelling, people have written me down as all kinds of variants in the past.
Hutchinson is a real problem to track down and that is why I'm interested that yourself and Brian Marriner saw a report that gave his age. It would be very important if someone could find that article again.
Details of George Hutchinson's (London connected) that I saw on both the 1881 and 1901 census left very few of them as candidates for Kelly's acquaintance. And two that did, seemed far too young in 1888.
The fear is that perhaps George was his second name and he used his real first name in 1881 and 1901, or that he wasn't a Londoner at all and only came to the area around 1884-5?
There was no George Hutchinson who was a groom in London in 1881. I believe at least one newspaper said he had a military appearance, so maybe he was a former army man?
In my view Bob, yourself and other writers that believe that Hutchinson was JTR, deserve great credit for making him the most credible of all the named suspects to date.
All the best.
Neal
|
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
I was reading an article today (from the Ogden Standard of 10 November 1888) and its account of the Kelly murder. One phrase in it struck me:
"It has been learned that a man respectably dressed accosted the victim and offered her money. They went to her lodging."
This can hardly be the famous man with the carroty moustache and in all the accounts I have read only one sighting fulfils all the criteris:
1) Respectably dressed
2) Seen to accost Kelly
3) Offers her money
4) Goes to her room with her
This sounds very much like the Hutchinson story to me but the article is dated Nov. 9 and carried in a paper published on the 10th.
This could suggest that the Hutchinson story was current at least two days before he came forward to give evidence.
Any comments welcome!
Chris S |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 161
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi Chris,
That's very interesting.
Personally, I don't believe Hutchinson's statements, and now here is a possible source that he might have drawn on, to make up his story.
It's possible that he felt he had to find a reason as to why he was seen hanging around outside, for so long.
It's all very suspect, to my mind. |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Bob,
You remind me of Sydney Greenstreet in "The Maltese Falcon."
The great expectation and anticipation followed by huge disappointment which would lead most to throw in the towel. But no, a deep sigh and a new resolve to meet your goal.
Good luck, you certainly deserve some.
Alan Smith |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 131
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Hi all
I have come across another American reporting of Hutchinson's testimony. Again this specifically says that this was given at the inquest. But the last sentence of this report I had not seen before: "Another witness at the inquest gave an almost identical description of the man, although Hutchinson and he had no communication with each other."
I have no idea who this other witness referred to could be. Any ideas?
 |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 132
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
I should have added thatthe above posting is from the Washington Star of 14 November 1888 |
Simon Dempsey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Hi,
Although I have been reading ripper books for a number of years, I consider myself something of a novice when it comes to research of my own and thus my question may well be extremely basic, (apologies if this is the case), but here it goes:
Considering that the theory goes that Hutchinson volunteered a description to police only after the Kelly investigation was complete, in order to preempt further description and indentification by Sarah Lewis, does anyone know of any record of Lewis being asked to identify Hitchinson as the man she described?
Many thanks,
Simon
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:32 pm: | |
G'day,
BOB: What makes you say that George Hutchinson was the only one seen at the scene of a crime at the time of the murder, and should therefore be the No.1 suspect?
I found a U.S. newspaper report that said that men started congregating outside Crossingham's Lodging House at midnight. Hutchinson never said that there was no one else nearby at the time of his sighting. Sarah Lewis said at Kelly's inquest that she saw a man standing alone by Crossingham's, meaning that he wasn't with anyone. She didn't say that he was the only sole in the street!
Hutchinson was the not the only 'suspect' seen at the scene at the time of a murder, because he was never a suspect!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:52 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: As Hutchinson said he could identify the man he saw with Kelly, arrangements were made at once for two officers to accompany him around the district with a view of finding him.
The official notes say that he then promised to go to Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased with one officer, (not Abberline.) This was probably to officially verify the corpse as the woman he saw. Everything had to be official! There wouldn't have been much to recognize her by, except maybe the colour of her hair.
The result of the search of the district, was recorded as: 'Several arrests have been made on suspicion of being connected with the recent murders, but the various persons detained have been able to satisfactorily account for their movements and were released. - F.G. Abberline Inspr.
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 9:45 pm: | |
Leanne,
The thread was titled "Joseph Barnett No 1 Suspect?" which I took to mean "Is JB the number 1 suspect?" The answer to this question is no he isn't for the reasons I have already given.
What makes me say he was the only suspect seen etc etc is because he is! I have asked you, if you disagree with this statement, to name another.
You then go on about him never being a suspect, by this I assume you mean a suspect at the time. How do you know? Was Barnett a suspect at the time? I don't think so.
GH is, if you like a modern suspect, we are in no position to know what contemporary suspects there were, so that is the only type of suspect we can, with authority, talk about.
Bob
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | |
Hallo everyone
Bob, from what I can gather from the above (and I hope I've understood it correctly!) your setback was due to a mismatch between the Hutchinson marriage signature and the Hutchinson police statement signature. On the basis of your theory, might there not be an explanation for this?
IF your Hutchinson stalker theory is right, Hutchinson might well have written letters or postcards to Kelly while he was at Romford. These
notes might not have been headed by an address, and he might not have signed his surname - probably just "George" or even "G".
IF "your" Hutchinson murdered Kelly, he wouldn't have known, when he decided to gamble on making a statement to the police, whether Kelly had kept his letters (unless he'd actually searched her room on 9th). Up to his shattering disillusionment, he'd have fondly imagined that she kept any letters from him as treasured possessions.
He'd have worked out that to use his own handwriting on the statement would be inviting trouble, should the police be in possession of a letter from someone called George, which they'd found in her room. So he'd have altered his handwriting for the statement.
All this sounds far-fetched considered in isolation, but it does make a kind of sense in the context of your theory, and your idea of his state of mind after the murder.
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Robert,
I wasn't seriously suggesting 'my' Hutchinson's writing changed. I was just trying to cheer myself up!
I have no doubt that 'my' Hutchinson is not 'the' Hutchinson. However like I said that doesn't alter my firm belief that the George Hutchinson known to us all is the killer.
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 245
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hi Bob
Well, it's a real shame, and I hope you get on his trail again soon.
But now, looking at it from a different angle : if Abberline wasn't taken in by Hutchinson, and on the contrary had strong suspicions concerning him, why does Hutchinson seem to just disappear from the case?
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
Dear Robert,
I believed GH dissapered from the case because the murders stopped.
Once GH had murdered MJK, the person he was fixated on (according to my theory) he would calm down and revert to normality, until his abnormal personality fixated on someone else.
Until then there could be many reasons why he would fade from the scene, he might die, move from the area, emigrate etc etc. My personal belief is that Abberline looked on him as a special case and made it somewhat personal. Its a strange coincidence that the file was closed on the Ripper when he retired.
I've always wonderd about the name of the house he retired to "Estcourt". I don't know who gave it that name but if it was Abberline was he making a sly comment about the Ripper being discovered but not arrested.
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 248
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 6:49 pm: | |
Hallo Bob
Sorry, I meant, why isn't he mentioned in the files, subsequent to the Kelly murder, if Abberline had such great suspicions concerning him? For instance, we don't find Monro et al saying, during the McKenzie investigation, "We checked on Abberline's You-Know-Who, but he had an alibi."
There are some parts of your theory which I'm not sure I quite agree with, Bob. On the other hand, you make a compelling case for regarding Hutchinson with deep suspicion.
"The Times" for Nov 14th has him saying that after he left the Court, he walked around all night as the place where he normally slept was closed. So apparently he did have money (if it was only his normal place's closure that stopped him sleeping there), and yet, he didn't have money (because he walked around all night instead of getting a bed somewhere else). Or did he expect people to believe that his idea of fun was to spend a cold and rainy night rambling round the East End?
So I'm in two minds about your theory, Bob.
As regards Estcourt, if the name was Abberline's choice, it may have been a wordplay on "caught", or even a joke ( police es(t)co(u)rt).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:28 am: | |
G'day,
IF GEORGE HUTCHINSON WAS A KILLER, YOU KNOW WHAT HIS MISTAKE WAS?....HE VOLUNTARILY INTRODUCED HIS NAME TO THE CASE!!!
LEANNE |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
Leanne,
I think Sarah Lewis threw his hand a little on that one.
Im not stating that Hutchinson is Mary's killer but being spotted outside the court on the night of the murder may have panicked him a little (innocent or not) into coming forward.
'If Ms Lewis saw him then who else ?' was probably the thought pattern.
Perhaps it was an attempt to control this situation best he could...as is some Serial murderers want.
But like I said, Hutchinson may be innocent, there is nothing more than supposition (as with most if not all suspects in this case) to support him as Marys killer.
Monty
 |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
Dear Robert,
The reasons I believe GH doesn't appear in any official files are twofold. First anything appearing in the files managed to find itself in the papers double quick.(Look at Schwart's statement they wanted keeping quiet) Secondly I believe Abberline suspected GH because of the his statement which is a load of tosh.
But how do you proceed from there? If you say to the man ' I believe you are lying' all he has to say is 'Prove it' and walk away. All you can do is to try and stop him from killing again, put a tail on him, and that in effect is what happened. GH was accompanied by two police officers for days afterwards. No other witness or suspect (as far as we know) got the same treatment.
As for GH wandering around on a wet cold night, most people forget to ask the vital question. GH's lodgings were opposite The City Darts pub ( you can see the spot when you go to a C & D meeting) Why did he walk right past his lodgings, although they were still open and head North? What was the important buisness that propelled him North? What lay in that direction, well for one thing Mary Kelly.
I believe he was on his way to see her, but to his surprise she comes down the street towards him, but after trying to scrounge some money off him she then walks past him and picks up a stranger. She takes stranger back, GH like the jealous erstwhile lover he is, follows them.
For everyone who believes GH to be innocent can you give any reasonable explanantion why he headed North that night?
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 254
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
Hallo Bob
You say the Victoria home was still open. Do you mean, still operational? I'm sure it was still operational, but I was wondering whether it was full-up that night. But it doesn't matter, because even if it was full-up, there's something very odd about Hutchinson's claim to have wandered round the rest of the night. Why didn't he get a bed somewhere else? So you may be right -he may have spent the rest of the night butchering Kelly.
Bob, I read your book a while ago, and I've re-read some of the sections recently, so I understand what you're saying about Abberline etc.
I just feel that, as time passed, there should have been some reference (direct or indirect) to Hutchinson in the extant files.
I see that you still hold to the stalker element of your theory. Now, as I understand it, your theory rests principally (though not entirely) on the following points : here was a man who 1) very probably lied to the police 2)followed one of the victims on the night of her murder 3)waited outside her home for some time. Surely it's simpler, if you believe him to be the Ripper, to say that he walked past his lodgings simply because that night was to be a killing night, and he was looking for a victim ; that he took an interest in Kelly and followed her, because he'd marked her down as a victim ; and finally, that he waited outside her room because he couldn't commence operations until her client had cleared. I can't quite see why you need the stalker element.
Of course, the stalker factor might explain why the murders stopped with Kelly, but other explanations (death etc) would do that too.
Maybe I'm not a romantic, Bob, but I'd find it easier to believe that Hutchinson walked for four hours on a filthy night because he was Jack the Ripper, and Whitechapel was the place that "got him off", than that he did that miserable walk purely on the off-chance of seeing his loved one.
There's also the point that, if Hutchinson was obsessed with Kelly, and if he was capable of murdering Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, why didn't he kill Barnett, who stood between him and Kelly?
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:11 am: | |
Circumstance is a real bastard. It is true that a circumstantial case can often lead to a conviction, but it can also result in a miscarriage of justice, and there are many famous examples.
Several years ago in my home town a couple of young men were sent to prison for murder. It was the robbery of a corner grocery, and the clerk was bound and beaten to death. A particularly horrible crime. The finger prints of the two men were found at the crime scene, and their vehicle was spotted fleeing the area.
Despite their conviction and several years in prison, it turned out that the two men were not guilty. Years later, a different man made a full confession. It so happens that the two young men had entered the store at one hell of a bad moment, found there to be no clerk [they didnt' know it, but she was dead behind the counter] and had used the opportunity to steal several cases of beer. It was discovered that the District Attorney had ignored some crucial evidence---on the inside surface of the duct tape used to bound the clerk was a finger-print that didn't belong to either of the two young men. In fact, it was a perfect match of the man that later confessed.
Hutchison is 'a person of interest.' But there can be any number of reasons for why George blew by the Victoria Home that evening. He was broke and may have owed one of the fellow lodgers money. He may have been a sneak thief. He might have been infatuated with Mary Kelly. But none of this really makes him guilty of anything, and, in the final analysis, I think Simon Dempsey asks a good question above. Did Lewis ever identify Hutchinson as the man she saw? Could she identify anyone? Was Hutchinson ever viewed by Schwartz or Lawende or Elizabeth Long?
While Hutchinson didn't come forward until after the inquest, police officers will tell you that witnesses often don't come forward until weeks, months, or even years after the fact. Hutchinson did come forward, and, if he can be believed, he even told a policeman his story on Sunday the 11th...the day before the inquest.
If I were George's solicitor, that's what I would point out...
Cheers. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:32 am: | |
G'day,
MONTY: Are we talking about Sarah Lewis's sighting of a "man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House. He was not tall - but stout - had on a wideawake black hat"? She told the police on the 9th that she "cannot describe him."
Oh come on!!!! How many short, stout men where there in Whitechapel that would have been sweating? Think of all the other sightings that were reported in the newspapers that went into a little more detail!
BOB: If GH doesn't appear in any official files, how come I am looking at a book, containing a three-page witness statement signed by him that begins: 'About 2am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street....' Then there is a report by Insp. Abberline about the Kelly inquest, that ends with the paragraph: 'An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith...'
Then 'The Ultimate Companion' goes on to say: 'George Hutchinson's statement was given wide coverage in the national newspapers...'
Why did he head North that night?....I'd say he had been a regular client of Kelly's for the three years that he'd known her, and wanted a bit that morning! When Kelly asked him for sixpence, that was her fee, which he didn't have. He may have thought he'd get a discount, if he waited. He couldn't have told all that to the police!
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
Leanne,
Once again you have spectacularly managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Someone asked me why GH didn't appear in official files AFTER the events of that night. We are all aware of the fact that he made a statement etc.
I fail to see your point about the description given by Sarah Lewis. She described what she saw and if she had been confronted with GH I have no doubt she would have identified him as the man she saw. However that was not neccessary GH came forward AFTER she had told everyone about her sighting and admitted he had been standing there.
R J Palmer.
GH's timing was crucial. I find it very important that he didn't come forward until after the inquest, an inquest in which Sarah Lewis stated she had seen a man outside the lodging house. GH had two options and only two. He could either say nothing and hope that Sarah Lewis doesn't bump into him and start screaming 'Thats the man I saw' or he can short circuit this eventually by coming forward and admitting it was him but explaining his presence, which is precisely what he did do!
As for telling a policeman on the 11th, well he would say that wouldn't he? However this is nonsense. If GH told at what time and where he spoke to this 'policeman' the PC could be easily identified as they worked a rigid beat system. A simple confrontation would easily prove or disprove the story. But the 'policeman' was never found! This story is nonsense. If it really happened that a police officer in the middle of one of the most intensive murder hunts in history really didn't want to listen to a vital witness why didn't GH just trot along to the local nick? He was quite willing to do this later on the following day! GH made his statement because he had to.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
Dear Robert,
Back to this about official files and the absence of GH. Of course a lot of files are missing and we will never know what was in them, however if we read between the lines I believe that we can deduce that there was official notification somewhere that GH was not to be trusted.
Anderson states that his witness was 'the only person who had a good view of the murderer' and controversy has raged whether this person was Lawende or Schwartz. To my mind this is missing the point. If Anderson's witness was the only person etc this means Anderson has dismissed GH, I mean GH even described his mans eyebrows for goodness sake.
Now look at what McNaghten says
'No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer' which means that he also dismisses GH as a witness. In some versions he goes on to say 'unless it was the PC who saw him etc etc.
The last person who dismisses GH is Abberline himself when a reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette called on Abberline to talk about the arrest and trial of Chapman Abberline talks about the possibility of Chapman being JTR. However one thing he does not mention is GH's description which in point of fact is a very near description of Chapman. If Abberline believed GH to be telling the truth why doesn't he point out this fact? Surely that would strengthen the case against Chapman. But he doesn't even mention GH. Is this the final pointer that after all no-one really believed GH to be a credible witness?
Bob |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
