|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | 
|
I hope someone here who has the book can get through it and enlighten us as to what's so convincing about Hutchinson (I'm assuming that's who the suspect is in this book).
Looking forward to hearing about the book.
|
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:57 pm: |
|
I really do wonder how on earth someone who admits trying to spy through MJK's window that night can be ignored so many people.
Is this an exaggeration or is this actually true? I have not read the book yet, but is this a new argument here?
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:54 am: |
|
Chris and all,
Firstly let me say that I do not want to dissuade anyone from buying the book. The conclusions that you have reached seem perfectly sound to me, and I agree that Hutchinson is an excellent candidate for JTR.
Regarding the G Hutchinson born in King David Lane, there were certain aspects about that individual that would have made him a stronger candidate than one born in Honolulu - see the suspects section of this site for more details.
The question is, I suppose, whether the conclusions that you have reached actually vary so significantly from those reached by Hinton, Wright, Eddlestone, Wroe etc. To this I can only suggest that people buy the book and make up their own minds. Allow 3 months for delivery though! 
David |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:57 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
May I ask which recent ‘Jack the Ripper Diary’ [sic] book you like the idea of openly criticising, and why?
Incidentally, I think Hutchinson would be a good suspect if MJK had been the only victim. I just think that after she was found murdered he feared the implications of keeping quiet and the police finding out by other means just how close he had been in time and place to the events of that night.
Too close for comfort, possibly up to no good too, but not necessarily a murderer who had ripped up at least four women.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 26, 2004) |
Chris Miles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hey Dan,
Your comments are much appreciated and your advice has been taken... Hell, if you weren't on the other side of the Atlantic, I'd buy you a drink.
All the best,
Chris |
Michelle J. Rabson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Greetings Chris,
Congratulations on your excellent investigation aand book. I was one of the recent people who ordered and received it within 9 or 10 days after sending my cheque - I'm glad all of the back-log has been sorted.
I must say that your work is extremely enlightening. I had read another book regarding your suspect a few years ago and though I commend that author for his choice of suspect, i do feel that he had gone off course in certain aspects. Your book adds so many completely new analyses and previously unpublished pieces of evidence - it was an extremely interesting and enjoyable read. The sketch (though, as you stated, is a very general depiction due to a lack of witness detaills of certain facial features), must not be taken lightly as obviously it is the only general idea of what the Ripper actually looked like to date. Also, your screenwriting experiences added a new dimension to the Ripper events. Your step-by-step description of the killer's actions and movements through Whitechapel is a refreshing and completely welcomed addition to Ripper books/history. For the first time in a book I've ever read, I actually felt as though I was following closely behind this legendary madman as he creeped through the East End streets, stalking his victims. I also thought your psychological analysis of him was spot on. Every true Ripper enthusiast out there should definitely read this book. I'm certainly looking forward to the sequel.
Regards,
Michelle |
d higgins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:57 pm: |
|
hi chris
i must say the book is amazing and i am very sorry for doubting you.
DAN |
Chris Miles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:21 am: |
|
Hello Dan,
Thanks for that Dan. Believe it or not, one simple sentence like yours, reminds me that all of my efforts, expenses, and seven-month-long hardships/frustrations (not to mention life-long ones) were worth it.
All the best,
Chris |
David N Bullock
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:14 am: |
|
Chris
I just wanted to let you know that an actual photograph of George Hutchinson does exist. It was puplished for the first time in the book 'The Ripper & The Royals' by Melvyn Fairclough.
I own the book and when looking at the photograph I must admit sometimes I do wonder am I looking at the face of a madman, the face of the true Ripper.
Regards
David Bullock |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 8:53 am: |
|
What? A photograph of the British George Hutchinson????
That I have totally missed.
(Well, considering the title of the book, I am not surprised I haven't thrown myself over it...)
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2997
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:10 am: |
|
I believe the photograph of George Hutchinson found in Fairclough's paperback (its not in the 1st edition) is not generally accepted to be the real McCoy. It should be remembered that many claims made by Fairclough have been refuted, including his "Abberline diaries".
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 928
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 11:35 am: |
|
The Ripper and The Royals contains a photo of the George Hutchinson that Fairclough identified as the one who was the Kelly witness and interviewed in 1992 a surviving son called Reg Hutchinson of whom a photo is also included.
These are the details of the George Hutchinson as identified by Fairclough:
"George William Topping Hutchinson was born in 1866 and celebrated his twenty second birthday on 1 October 1888, the day adter Stride and eddowes were killed. He followed in father's and grandfather's footsteps and became a plumber.
In 1895, seven years after the murders, he married Florence Jervis. After their wedding at Trinity Church, Stepney, they became keen ice skaters. George was also an accomplished violinist."
In the interview with Hutchinson's son, he had this to say:
"I remember he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and weas interviewed by the police, but I'd never seen his actual statement until today, when you came round. But if that's what he said, that's what he saw. Dad was a very down to earth man, and didn't elaborate anything. It just wasn't in his nature. He knew more than he told, though, but he kept it close to his chest. Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because meny people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill." Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come straight out with it. He said at the time he was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Perhaps he was paid to keep quiet about what really happened and say nothing about what he really knew."
Fairclough finally adds:
"George Hutchinson was working as usual when he suffered a heart attack and died aged 71 in 1938."
Hope this gives a bit of background
Chris |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
A few weeks ago I found a report in a local newspaper from November 1888 which said that Hutchinson's trade was that of a groom. This would seem to conflict with the George Hutchinson in Melvyn Fairclough's book who "followed in his father and grandfather's footsteps and became a plumber.
Best Regards,
John Savage |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 3:55 am: |
|
Hi,
It would appear that George william topping hutchinson, was the real mccoy, his son Reg is the person who gave an interview, on the radio in the early seventys, on that infamous programme, that is being discussed at this moment.
In that programme, he mentioned that his father was paid the sum of five pounds,[100 shillings] for his efforts in walking the streets with the police.
The sum of five pounds , which would be worth approx 4 weeks wages then, so if puts that in prospective in todays standards, being realistic, about a thousand pounds
Rather a lot for a couple of trips out with a police officer.
He must have been more cooperative than that, to receive that amount?.
Richard. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 931
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:02 pm: |
|
George William Topping Hutchinson
1891 Census
Listed as a lodger at a lodging house at 69 Warren Street, Tottenham Court, London.
His details are given as follows:
George W.T. Hutchinson aged 24 born Norwood, London
(The initials are given in the index as G.W.S. but comparison with the enumerator's writing shows this should be G.W.T.)
Lodger
Single
Plumber
1881 Census
He is still living at home with his father George and sister Jane.
Address:
4 Roper Street, Eltham, Kent.
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 54 born Chelmsford, Essex
Plumber
Widowed
Children:
Jane Hutchinson aged 19 born Hornchurch, Essex
Housekeeper
George W. Hutchinson aged 14 born Norwood, Syrrey
Scholar.
By 1891 George Snr. had remarried and had fathered another son.
Address:
4 Lenham Road, Lee, London
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 63 born Chelmsford, Essex
Plumber
Wife:
Emma Hutchinson aged 41 born Upton
Son:
Herbert Hutchinson aged 1 born Lee, Kent
Niece:
Agnes M. Wratton aged 14 born Lee, Kent
Tracing back from Agnes M. Wratton to 1881 we find:
Address:
29 Taunton Road, Lee, Kent.
Head:
George Wratten (sic) aged 27 born Detling, Kent
Gardener
Wife:
Harriet Wratten aged 32 born Upton, Buckingham
Children:
Agnes M Wratten aged 4 born Blackheath, Kent
George W. Wratten aged 1 born Eltham, Kent
As Harriet Wratten and Emma Hutchinson were both born in Upton, the most likely relationship is that Agnes is George Snr. niece by being his wife's sister's daughter.
Of course the intriguing loose end is that George Jnr. had a sister called Jane who was five years old. IF this is the George Hutchinson of Kelly fame, could this be the sister in Romford he had been visiting? Certianly ehere are plenty of Essex connections but I have yet to find a positive 1891 identifiaction and location for Jane Hutchinson.
Any further developments I will post here.
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 932
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Just one more bit of info. Reg Hutchinson was three years out in the date of George's marriage as below:
Marriage of George William T Hutchinson
Marriage was registered in June 1898 at Mile End between George William T Hutchinson and Florence Jervis.
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |
|
In his book FROM HELL...The Jack the Ripper Mystery Bob Hinton states that he believes that George William Topping Hutchinson is not the George Hutchinson and he gives several reasons why he believes this.
According to Bob the name George William Topping Hutchinson is "not the name that he is referred to either in the papers, understandably, or in his statement , not understandably. It is common practice in statements to refer to the person either by the whole of the person's name, or at the very least by his first name and all initials. This is done for the obvious reason of correct identification. The statements are signed George and Geo Hutchinson again with no other initials. There is also the fact that George W T Hutchinson is the wrong age. George Hutchinson is referred to in all the papers that gave his age as being 28, George W T Hutchinson was only 22 at the time..."
Bob adds that document examiner Sue Iremonger feels that the signature of George W T Hutchinson does not match that of the signature on the police statement signed by George Hutchinson.
Bob goes on to state that he believes that the correct George Hutchinson was born 10 December, 1859 at 43 King David Lane, Shadwell. His father being Joseph Hutchinson, licensed victualler.
Wolf. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Wolf,
I believe Bob Hinton revised his opinion last year (in a very honorable manner, in my opinion). See this thread.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on March 01, 2004) |
Michelle J. Rabson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Greetings all,
Let me just say that I own and have read all three books : Sugden's excellently researched book,The CompleteHistory of... (and on pages 333 -334 he clearly states that the Hutchinson who encountered Kelly had been residing in The Victoria Home. This definitely discounts the William Topping individual), Hinton's From Hell, and recently, Miles' On The Trail. All three of these very well researched texts point to the man who resided in the Victoris Home. So, I agree with Wolf's and John Savag's messages. Furthermore, Stephen Ryder mentioned in a previous poster from yesterday that Fairclough's Hutchinson(W.T.)and many of his claims have ben refuted. I think we have a pretty good consensus here folks,coming from four excellent sources. I have also read that Fairclough's man has been refuted many times. So I think we can surely trust that Phillip Sugden, Hinton and Chris Miles' Hutchinson was indeed the man who had been involved in the Mary Kelly murder incident.
Michelle
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Wolf,
I should have been more clear that Bob's revision has to do with his own candidate for George Hutchison (the 28 year old), and not George William Topping Hutchison. As far as I know, he still excludes him as being the man who knew Mary Kelly.
Dave |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 3:17 pm: |
|
"The Never Before Seen Document."
The cover of the book mentions that. Is this true and what is it? |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
I believe that the document referred to is the 1891 enumeration book for the Victoria Home for Working Men, which showed Joe Barnett's brother Daniel as a resident. To call it 'never before seen' would be wrong, as Bob Hinton refers to the fact that Daniel Barnett resided there in his own book. However, in fairness to Chris Miles, what it actually says on the cover of his book is 'never-before-analysed' (although on page 104 Miles states that no one for well over a century had acknowledged that Hutchinson had lived in the same lodging house as the man who was virtually Mary Jane Kelly's brother in law ... a statement which is clearly incorrect).
What is unique is Miles' analysis of the document, which apparently runs along the following lines.
1. The Lusk letter was genuine (ie sent by the killer)
2. It deliberately tried to convey an Irish-Cockney accent
3. Hutchinson must have known Daniel Barnett, and therefore have been aware that Joe Barnett had an Irish-Cockney accent
4. Therefore Hutchinson sent the Lusk letter to throw suspicion upon Joe Barnett.
IMHO all four of these are open to question, to say the least!
David |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 2:47 am: |
|
Hey David,
Thanks for the explanation. Guess it's a common habit for authors to claim something to draw your attention. I've been a victim of it. A couple of odd claims by Miles, but I'll probably order it anyway. |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
I've read On The Trail but I'm not convinced.I still think somebody more like Cohen/Unknown Jewish Suspect fits better.Surely Insp.Abberline would have checked out Hutchinsons background after he came forward maybe even checked Hutchinsons whereabouts at the times of the other murders.Abberline was not that stupid he must have considered the possibility H was the killer but it does make me wonder more about why H stayed outside Mary's for so long that night.So many questions without answers |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 470
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Hi Belinda,
"he must have considered the possibility H was the killer"
I would say in hindsight that he probably should have, but I don't think we can say that he did unless there's evidence of it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page