Gareth's Very Own Hutch Thread

[SirRobertAnderson]

A thread for Gareth to explain to us the basis for The Great Toppy War.

I, for one, would like the Reader's Digest version of the debate that rages on elsewhere.

[Archaic]

FREE GEORGE HUTCHINSON!!!

handmade protest sign

held aloft by

Archaic

[SirRobertAnderson]

FREE GEORGE HUTCHINSON!!!

handmade protest sign

held aloft by

Archaic

We intend to.

[Archaic]

Oh, Sir Robert, YOU ROCK!

OK; here's the Plan: Sam will call Amnesty International- NO; wait- I will, cuz Bono might answer!

Sir Robert, are you good at Public Agitation? Or is Sam? (Uh, something tells me Sam.)

Well, one of you has to make the tie-dye ''Free George'' T-shirts... What else? Sir Robert, we need to tap phone-lines...& computers...
we'll need disguises, groceries...some peanut butter...

Guys, look; be cool...I'll be back in a few minutes... I totally know how to do this, but I just need to listen to the Talking Heads again to make sure i didn't forget anything.

Let the Revolution begin- FREE GEORGE HUTCHINSON! :rockon::high5::hippie: YEAH, BABY! Anarchic

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho

I'll make an observation that has occurred to me.

It was recently stated, by the eminent Samuel Flynn, that he couldnt really understand the kerfuffle caused if GH was Toppy (or whoever) as it does nothing to harm his (in my opinion) non-existent candidature as Jack.

I disagree. Because if Gh was the man who signed the document later on....then it proves he was still in the area and hadn't "fled" after all those years. Which, unless one is retarded, is hardly the sign of a guilty man.

And not only did he stay and have no shame, it appears he also managed to quell his murderous desires for that time.

So.....if GH is the later man.....and the killer.....we are left with the distinctly implausible notion of our non-fleeing, double guessing, scheming, utterly atypical, dumb as a brush for hanging round, apparently normalised and non-killing reformed JtR just settling down to a queit old age in the very place he had spent so much time first killing women and then pulling off the scheme of the century.

p

[Mr. Poster]

And I will also add that GH discussion appears very much to have descended into the realms of the worst period of Diary discussion in that every thread started on the matter rapidly becomes a farce via the actions of one or two omnipresent posters who serve only to reduce such threads to disaster via constant posting and blitzing each thread.

Whilst all the time maintaining that, since they didn't start the thread, they are only responding to some kind of public need to avoid being conned or to be enlightened and are therefore not part of the problem.

Its quite depressing that one or two people can hold entire areas of Ripperology to ransom due to the fact that they are (presumably) unemployed or employed but not working and have nothing better to do than make sure they drown threads in torrents of oft repeated nonsense.

p

[Archaic]

Hi, Mr Poster. I see Hutchinson as the handy scapegoat of people who have burned through all their other suspects.

Maybe that's why they come down so hard on him?

I don't think he's done anything to deserve it, but it seems a popular bandwagon. It's almost fashionable to crucify him. Maybe that's just natural mob mentality in action, but I myself don't care for it.

Best regards, Archaic

[Stephen Thomas]

FREE GEORGE HUTCHINSON!!!




That reminds me of another George

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Davis_(armed_robber)

FREE GEORGE DAVIS was painted on walls all over London. One time I saw it on the wall of a gas station and some wit had come along and added WITH EVERY FOUR GALLONS

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Archaic

almost fashionable to crucify him. Maybe that's just natural mob mentality in action,

I would agree....except that there is a very limited (in number and with respect, I can only assume, mental capacity) grouping who persist in the GH fantasy.

I cannot think its more than........two, maximum three people.

Admittedly, their blitzing of threads, persistence in their delusions and borderline (Norderline?) aggressive behaviour would lead one to think they were a large group.

Its a sad day when discussion on what is the Internets biggest ripper resource is completely and utterly dominated by the rabid, repetitive, illogical postings of a bunch of fanatics.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Its quite depressing that one or two people can hold entire areas of Ripperology to ransom due to the fact that they are (presumably) unemployed or employed but not working and have nothing better to do than make sure they drown threads in torrents of oft repeated nonsense.

p

You mean, like "resting" actors and so on? :tape:


Hi, Mr Poster. I see Hutchinson as the handy scapegoat of people who have burned through all their other suspects.

Maybe that's why they come down so hard on him?

I don't think he's done anything to deserve it, but it seems a popular bandwagon. It's almost fashionable to crucify him. Maybe that's just natural mob mentality in action, but I myself don't care for it.

Best regards, Archaic

'Popular bandwagon' in what sense, Archaic?

One resting actor and a besotted groupie (a bit like the wonderful Flight of the Conchords - best thing to come out of New Zealand since butter and lamb - but with only Jemaine and Mel and about as funny as raging toothache) does not a popular bandwagon make.

You have to wonder why a rule hasn't yet been introduced to deal with the most space-wasting posters, who appear to contribute nothing towards the running of a site yet freely admit to using the cut and paste function to bombard certain threads ad nauseam with identical arguments until the pages number in their hundreds. Last time I looked the 1911 thread had reached 237 sodding pages.

Like Maybrick, Hutch never was a ripper suspect and shouldn't be one now. There is only tumbleweed for evidence.

At least with the diary, it's a mystery in its own right. You have to go some to create a huge mystery out of another Packeresque witness.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bob Hinton]

That reminds me of another George

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Davis_(armed_robber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Davis_%28armed_robber))

FREE GEORGE DAVIS was painted on walls all over London. One time I saw it on the wall of a gas station and some wit had come along and added WITH EVERY FOUR GALLONS


And after a great many people campaigned for his release and finally got him out of jail, he was caught red handed pulling another job and then confessed he was guilty of the first one as well. I believe it was at that stage his wife left him.

[Sam Flynn]

It was recently stated, by the eminent Samuel Flynn, that he couldnt really understand the kerfuffle caused if GH was Toppy as it does nothing to harm his [...] candidature as Jack.

I disagree. Because if Gh was the man who signed the document later on....then it proves he was still in the area and hadn't "fled" after all those years. Which, unless one is retarded, is hardly the sign of a guilty man. And not only did he stay and have no shame, it appears he also managed to quell his murderous desires for that time.Is that necessarily unheard-of, MrP? Not that I now believe Hutchinson was guilty of killing anything but time, you understand, but it's faintly possible - and there may be precedents (e.g. Zodiac) that might support this viewpoint.

That said, one could pick any mild-mannered "witness" in the Ripper case who remained in London, and play the same Joker - so such an argument doesn't get us very far. Besides, I have little doubt that the Ripper 'imself was beyond the point of no return by the Winter of 1888, and something happened to him shortly thereafter to prevent him committing still more atrocities.

However, I must say that the identification of the apparently very ordinary Toppy with Hutch (now beyond any reasonable doubt in my view), might be seen as having a weakening effect on Hutchinson's candidature as the Ripper; at least by those who want to paint him black. I can understand why that might cause dismay - as I said on the almost-Proustian "Hutch in the 1911 Census" thread at Casebook, I reacted in a like manner when I realised I'd been sold a pup by Erich von Daniken back in the late 1970s.

To answer Sir Bob's question, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar manifestation of psychological denial lies at the heart of the recent firestorm. It's not limited to Hutch, either, I might add. From what I've experienced of Ripperology there's a lot of it about, especially when one's sacred cows come under threat. That's not a criticism, by the way, but a dispassionate observation... furthermore, I've been guilty of it myself.

[SirRobertAnderson]

However, I must say that the identification of the apparently very ordinary Toppy with Hutch (now beyond any reasonable doubt in my view), might be seen as having a weakening effect on Hutchinson's candidature as the Ripper; at least by those who want to paint him black. I can understand why that might cause dismay - as I said on the almost-Proustian "Hutch in the 1911 Census" thread at Casebook, I reacted in a like manner when I realised I'd been sold a pup by Erich von Daniken back in the late 1970s.



Could you do a favor for those of us that may have missed the original point, and try to summarize the 1911 Census finding ? (A scan would be welcome.)

[Sam Flynn]

Could you do a favor for those of us that may have missed the original point, and try to summarize the 1911 Census finding ? (A scan would be welcome.)
Gladly, Bob. Since the 1911 Census came online, one of our intrepid friends - it was Debs, I believe - found George William Topping Hutchinson's census return, which (from 1911 onwards) had to be completed by the head of the household. The multiple signatures on that census form, together with those on Toppy's 1898 marriage certificate, match very closely the signature of George Hutchinson, the Miller's Court witness, as the following animation shows:

Click for the Hutch Signature Show. (http://www.btinternet.com/~gareth.h.williams/files/hutch-animation.mov)

The above was created from a slideshow of one signature each taken from the documents of 1888, 1898 and 1911. Some folks have been side-tracked by the fact that there are minor variations, especially in the "leading" and "trailing" elements of the signature - but who's signature remains exactly constant over a period of 23 years? The fact of the matter is that the "meat" of his signature - look, especially at "utchinso" in his surname - remains remarkably consistent.

The good news is that "Toppy" had a large family, so he wrote "utchinso" many times on the 1911 census return. Here is a montage of "utchinsos", comprising every entry from 1911, together with an "utchinso" each from the police statement and the marriage cert:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/utchinso.jpg

I've deliberately shuffled them, but - believe me - they're all accounted for. I can hardly tell them apart.

[SirRobertAnderson]

The good news is that "Toppy" had a large family, so he wrote "utchinso" many times on the 1911 census return. Here is a montage of "utchinsos", comprising every entry from 1911, together with an "utchinso" each from the police statement and the marriage cert:


I've deliberately shuffled them, but - believe me - they're all accounted for. I can hardly tell them apart.

OK - I am going to display great ignorance....any reason you are leaving out the "H" and the "n" ?

[Sam Flynn]

OK - I am going to display great ignorance....any reason you are leaving out the "H" and the "n" ?
Because they are the elements of the signature that show some variation between the samples, Bob, of which much play was made on the Casebook thread. I thought that to be a storm in a teacup, to be kind. My own signatures showed far more variation across the board over a shorter time span than we're looking at here. For info, the "H"s differ even within the three pages of the 1888 signature, and the later "n"s have an upward flick at the end, that's all.

In my own survey of the 1911 Census, I found only one George Hutchinson whose signature might have matched, but he was rooted in Lambeth during his adult life... plus he lacked the long, "top-launched" crossbar on the letter "t", the deeply-cupped "u" and the displaced dot over the "i" that remain 100% consistent in the signatures posted above.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Is that necessarily unheard-of, MrP? Not that I now believe Hutchinson was guilty of killing anything but time, you understand, but it's faintly possible - and there may be precedents (e.g. Zodiac) that might support this viewpoint.


The real question is not whether a killer could go dormant for years, but if anyone could do what was done to Kelly and lead a normal life. What was done was so far outside the norm for 1888* that I just don't see it.

(I personally think GH was guilty of nothing other than fibbing about why he went to see Kelly that night.)

*still outre for 2009, thank God. But you get my drift.

[How Brown]

I personally think GH was guilty of nothing other than fibbing about why he went to see Kelly that night--Sir Bobbington.

Quite possibly the identical unspoken and undocumented sentiment shared by Abberline as well who was possibly just glad he came forward and without elaborating why he felt Hutch was telling the truth, simply said he believed him without getting into the real reason Hutch was there...

But if some feel he's suspectworthy or even the Ripper,thats cool too.:kiss:

[Mr. Poster]

Having gotten fundamentally lost (perhaps the intention of the posters) on the marathon 1911 and Hoppy threads.....SamF's posting of all those signatures is remarkably convincing.

BUt....as a minor point.....and I still think his identification is correct.....the first and last letters of my past name seem to be th eones that undergo the least variation in signing things and th emiddle bit is generally a fairly nondescript blur.

But with H or N or not....I think these look the same.

As to the GH case being weakened by it...one could argue that.

However if one wants to argue the implausibility that GH stuck around after Kelly and went to the police instead of just vanishing then its hardly a great stretch to argueing that he then proceeded to stick around for another twenty years or more.

So weakened or not, its unlikely to put a sock in the gobs of the peddlars of improbability.

p

[Bob Hinton]

Gladly, Bob. Since the 1911 Census came online, one of our intrepid friends - it was Debs, I believe - found George William Topping Hutchinson's census return, which (from 1911 onwards) had to be completed by the head of the household. The multiple signatures on that census form, together with those on Toppy's 1898 marriage certificate, match very closely the signature of George Hutchinson, the Miller's Court witness, as the following animation shows:

Click for the Hutch Signature Show. (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Egareth.h.williams/files/hutch-animation.mov)

The above was created from a slideshow of one signature each taken from the documents of 1888, 1898 and 1911. Some folks have been side-tracked by the fact that there are minor variations, especially in the "leading" and "trailing" elements of the signature - but who's signature remains exactly constant over a period of 23 years? The fact of the matter is that the "meat" of his signature - look, especially at "utchinso" in his surname - remains remarkably consistent.

The good news is that "Toppy" had a large family, so he wrote "utchinso" many times on the 1911 census return. Here is a montage of "utchinsos", comprising every entry from 1911, together with an "utchinso" each from the police statement and the marriage cert:

5259

I've deliberately shuffled them, but - believe me - they're all accounted for. I can hardly tell them apart.

I like the slideshow but can we just have the 1911 signature on its own. Plus for some reason on these boards I cannot seem to see any pictures posted, so I've missed the one Sam posted.

[How Brown]

I cannot seem to see any pictures posted, so I've missed the one Sam posted.

Judge Hinton:

I will pass this on to Tim immediately.

[Sam Flynn]

I like the slideshow but can we just have the 1911 signature on its own. Yer tiz, Bob :)

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/toppy20sig201911.jpg
And here it is (in B&W) alongside the signatures on the three witness statement pages from 1888:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/toppy20and20hutch.jpg

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the "leading/trailing" elements of the signature changing over time - so did those of my own signature - and that there's a known discrepancy in the "H" on the first (and only the first) page of the witness statement. The important thing is that the overall shape of the signature, including the "meat" (eorge + utchinso) remains remarkably consistent over a span of 23 years.

[Nemo]

They definitely look like a match to me

So did George get £5 for "helping with inquiries?" do you think Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

They definitely look like a match to me

So did George get £5 for "helping with inquiries?" do you think Sam?I'm not so sure about the amount - seems a little high - but I'm not averse to the idea that the police might have recompensed some witnesses for taking time out to assist them, especially as in this case the witness was initially thought trustworthy and that the suspect "[could] be identified" by him.

[Bob Hinton]

Yer tiz, Bob :)

5264

And here it is (in B&W) alongside the signatures on the three witness statement pages from 1888:

5265

.

Nope still nothing appearing.

[Nemo]

Bob - try going to the menu on your internet explorer, select...

TOOLS---> INTERNET OPTIONS ---> ADVANCED

Scroll down to the MULTIMEDIA section and ensure there is a "tick" next to "show pictures"

[How Brown]

Good thinkin' Nemo !!. What would we do without you,buddy?:kiss:

I agree 100 % with you,old bean, that these signatures look very similar...so similar in fact that for someone to not see similarity smacks of some sort of agenda...in my view.

[Sam Flynn]

Bob - try going to the menu on your internet explorer, select...

TOOLS---> INTERNET OPTIONS ---> ADVANCED

Scroll down to the MULTIMEDIA section and ensure there is a "tick" next to "show pictures"
Or right-click on the place-holder for the image and select "show image/open in new window" or similar. (I haven't used Internet Explorer for a while, so I can't remember what the options are.)

[Nemo]

To see the image holder thingy, that option would also need to be selected in the MULTIMEDIA section

Turning off pictures and showing only the place holder for the image allows for very fast internet browsing as you only need to view the images you want, as per Sam's instructions - so the images don't need to be downloaded every time you visit a page

[Nemo]

I speculated before that Abberline would not have wanted to lose sight of Hutchinson - so I can't see him allowing to go and return at a later date

He would have been too important as a witness and possibly in danger of being killed by the Ripper/Astrakhan

Hutchinson was a transient as far as I can tell and living in temporary lodgings

I wondered if £5 would cover a lengthy stay in some place of lodgings where Abberline/the police could find him when needed - and possibly a new suit

£5 may sound a little high, but I'm sure I read that £160 was sent to a person on the continent claiming to be able to catch the Ripper on nothing more than his say so

It is this £5 that I think should show in Treasury records

I expect the Treasury records of "petty cash" payments to the police to still exist - they would make interesting reading I think

[How Brown]

Dear Lars:

Correct me if I am wrong here, my old friend, because I just don't see it... as to why the similarity of the signatures have as much to do with whether Hutchinson stuck around... or if you prefer, not having fled, the general area ? I agree that the signatures are extremely similar.



In the case of Hutchinson...the case of him being a witness or not a witness and all the testimony he provided and telling the truth or otherwise.... and not in any way pertaining to his suspect candidature...how do the signatures come into play in him being truthful or a prevaricator on the 12th of November,1888 and him hanging about ?

I would think that had he been the killer, he would not have approached the police in the first place. Thats just my feeling and not a fact. I'm not going down the road on his candidacy here ,but.....

....I get the impression that you are stating that both conditions...the one of him being a lying witness and/or the actual killer of Kelly or any of the other WM victims....are one and the same in that he would not have still been around in the general area to sign the census. Please elaborate,sor....


Thanks in advance.

[How Brown]

Judge Hinton,sor

Did Nemo and Sammy's advice help?

[Bob Hinton]

Bob - try going to the menu on your internet explorer, select...

TOOLS---> INTERNET OPTIONS ---> ADVANCED

Scroll down to the MULTIMEDIA section and ensure there is a "tick" next to "show pictures"

I don't have that I'm on Firefox. It's weird I can get pictures on every other site including casebook, but not this one.

[How Brown]

Dear Judge H:

Tim ain't much to look at, but he's good at fixing technical problems...and has been sent an email immediately upon hearing of this issue.

Hopefully it will be resolved today.

How

[Sam Flynn]

I don't have that I'm on Firefox. It's weird I can get pictures on every other site including casebook, but not this one.
Bob - check your email!

[Sam Flynn]

I agree 100 % with you,old bean, that these signatures look very similar...so similar in fact that for someone to not see similarity smacks of some sort of agenda...in my view.That's my view also, How. My experience over on Casebook apropos these signatures was a little like my recent experiences here, in another context - my "opponents" (in the nicest sense) tending to pick on individual points rather than focusing on the whole... like, a "closed G" must somehow have been written by a different person, for example; or a "looped" stem on an "h" was sufficient to rule out a match.

As I said over there, and I repeat it here (because it's true), such differences are trifling - as I was able to prove by posting scans of my own signatures which showed similar variations over a somewhat shorter period of time. I even showed a London tailor's order-book from the 1880s where the writer's "D" and "H" changed style over a period of a mere fortnight, as you'll note below:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/order-book.jpg

(See orders for "D H Jones" on the left and right-hand pages.)

[SirRobertAnderson]

I would think that had he been the killer, he would not have approached the police in the first place. Thats just my feeling and not a fact.

Can we all agree that we'd feel a whole lot better if he didn't march in AFTER the pardon was put forth ?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Thanks, Gareth.

Congrats on some nise detective work, sor.

Because they are the elements of the signature that show some variation between the samples, Bob, of which much play was made on the Casebook thread. I thought that to be a storm in a teacup, to be kind. My own signatures showed far more variation across the board over a shorter time span than we're looking at here. For info, the "H"s differ even within the three pages of the 1888 signature, and the later "n"s have an upward flick at the end, that's all.

In my own survey of the 1911 Census, I found only one George Hutchinson whose signature might have matched, but he was rooted in Lambeth during his adult life... plus he lacked the long, "top-launched" crossbar on the letter "t", the deeply-cupped "u" and the displaced dot over the "i" that remain 100% consistent in the signatures posted above.

[How Brown]

Can we all agree that we'd feel a whole lot better if he didn't march in AFTER the pardon was put forth ?-Bob

If you're asking me,sure, Bob...and even without one.

Me ever feeling that he is worth keeping in mind as a suspect or witness ( one can do both ) has little to nothing to do with him appearing at the police station. I don't know about anyone else's view, but thats just my two cents.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Me ever feeling that he is worth keeping in mind as a suspect or witness ( one can do both ) has little to nothing to do with him appearing at the police station. I don't know about anyone else's view, but thats just my two cents.

As Lars has pointed out, he could have taken a powder and just melted away after realizing he'd been I.D.'ed in some fashion outside Miller Court.

Walking in with a cockamamie story was literally sticking his head in the lion's mouth. It could so easily have been fatal to him.

I just wish it didn't coincide with the offer of a pardon for an accomplice.

I certainly agree with Gareth that evidence that he went on to raise a family in the area is exculpatory.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Lets have some points:

1. GH has nothing to do with a pardon. If it had, what sort of prat notices that an accomplice will get a pardon, then waltzes in and gives a statement that doesnt make him an accomplice at all, never mentions it, and even if some secret deal was done and it hadn't appeared in his statement....doesn't figure out that if he doesn't deliver the person he was accomplicing...he may well rise rapidly through the ranks to suspect Number 1 ?

2. Lets not forget that GH also coincided with word about the Ripper threatening witness's.

as to why the similarity of the signatures have as much to do with whether Hutchinson stuck around... or if you prefer, not having fled, the general area ? I agree that the signatures are extremely similar.

If the signatures are the same, then it means that GH was still going by his name, with no shame, in the general area, some years later.

That means he still existed as an entity having made no major efforts to becomes someone else, a feat we know was of simplicity in the LVP. And if he had been the Ripper, it means he either suddenly curbed his urges for good after Kelly and became a model citizen (!) or else started travelling to kill women in another way. Possible I suppose but hardly likely.....

He hung around as GH waiting I assume all th etime for the knock on the door of the police with new information that could have him standing on a stage for one and with a long drop.

Hardly the actions of a guilty man. Then again, GH as guilty-ers would probably have us belive that not only was he incredibly cool and caluclating in 1888....he managed to maintain his coolness over twenty years or so.

I get the impression that you are stating that both conditions...the one of him being a lying witness and/or the actual killer of Kelly or any of the other WM victims....are one and the same in that he would not have still been around in the general area to sign the census.

As a lying witness he may have stuck around but its hardly wise.

As a mistaken witness or a daft witness or a witness led astray....why wouldnt he just get on with his life? Like millions of them do.

Its the people with something to hide that tend to be hard to find later on.

And it appears our GH wasn't. Also note if you will that if GH was guilty of something and for some reason the police didn't or couldn't act......one would half expect the local people to start gossipping or for there to be rumours aplenty regarding our man GH.

Yet there doesnt seem to have been a whisper ever about GH. NO verbal recollections, no scurrilous reports in the press, no vague hints.

Just GH plodding along through life (Assuming the signatures to be the same) with no apparent slur on his good (and consistently signed name).

I contend again that if SamF's later GH is our man......then it does go some way to driving another nail in the GH Guilty coffin (which is already fairly full of nails, forged of logic, in the blacksmithy of good sense).

p

[Debra Arif]

As I said over there, and I repeat it here (because it's true), such differences are trifling - as I was able to prove by posting scans of my own signatures which showed similar variations over a somewhat shorter period of time. I even showed a London tailor's order-book from the 1880s where the writer's "D" and "H" changed style over a period of a mere fortnight, as you'll note below:



(See orders for "D H Jones" on the left and right-hand pages.)

I also posted a scan of Badham's own 1911 cenus entry on the other thread in which he used two distinctly different styles of the letter 'H' over the course of....however long it takes to fill in a cenus entry.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed you did, Debs... thanks for reminding me!

[Caroline Morris]

I speculated before that Abberline would not have wanted to lose sight of Hutchinson - so I can't see him allowing to go and return at a later date

He would have been too important as a witness and possibly in danger of being killed by the Ripper/Astrakhan

Hutchinson was a transient as far as I can tell and living in temporary lodgings

I wondered if £5 would cover a lengthy stay in some place of lodgings where Abberline/the police could find him when needed - and possibly a new suit...


Hi Nemo,

I think that's an astoundingly astute observation, and one that cannot be smothered by the smog of even a thousand pages of rotten, repetitive rhetoric, designed to make Hutch seem like a criminal mastermind who artfully dodged hither and thither under the noses of the doziest police force in history.

There is no way on earth that they would have fannied their way round Whitechapel with this witness, looking for the man he said he saw entering the murder room with Mary, unless they hoped it might lead to the ripper ending up in court and being convicted - in which happy circumstance Hutchinson would arguably prove the most powerful tool in the box (and I mean that in the polite sense), not to say an absolutely essential one, in achieving that end.

No earthly good Hutch pointing out his man for the cops to clap the derbies on 'im, if they later frogmarch their prime suspect before a jury but can't produce their star witness because: "Well he was of no fixed abode, your honour, and he didn't particular care to have it fixed for him as No 1, The Tool Box, c/o Scotland Yard. Our hands were tied..."

And for the sake of a fiver the fiend (be he suspect or bogus witness) could have walked free.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

Hi ho

Lets have some points:

1. GH has nothing to do with a pardon. If it had, what sort of prat notices that an accomplice will get a pardon, then waltzes in and gives a statement that doesnt make him an accomplice at all, never mentions it, and even if some secret deal was done and it hadn't appeared in his statement....doesn't figure out that if he doesn't deliver the person he was accomplicing...he may well rise rapidly through the ranks to suspect Number 1 ?




Not to detract from an excellent post, Mr. Lars, but if we are to put to rest GH's candidacy we do need to address those points that raise an eyebrow. He did delay coming forward, and did so after a pardon for an accomplice had been announced AND it was clear that he had been seen on his nightwatch.

Does that raise questions ? Sure. Going into the station, as you so rightly point out, could easily have turned fatal. The pardon would provide a fail safe if his AM story blew up in his face.

There is no question IMHO that the tough nut to crack with GH is why he didn't run to the police the day after Kelly's murder.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SirBOb

He did delay coming forward, and did so after a pardon for an accomplice had been announced AND it was clear that he had been seen on his nightwatch.

True. But then one would surely wonder why, assuming he was propelled into the arms of Inspector Knacker by mention of a pardon, why he didn't mention he was an accomplice? Indeed he uses a story that removes his being granted that pardon. And that he didnt use the accomplice ruse in secret or something is patently clear as, when the killer didn't show up, GH's pardon is gone (as it would obviously have been dependant on producing the killer) and he still doesn't end up on the scaffold.

So, if the pardon was his impeller, strange that he didnt use it. Which logically leaves only the conclusion that it wasn't the pardon that sent him in.

Does that raise questions ? Sure.

It does. But logic dictates that it wasnt a pardon that sent him in to the police.

Going into the station, as you so rightly point out, could easily have turned fatal. The pardon would provide a fail safe if his AM story blew up in his face.

Well why didnt he use it then? And he patently didnt. 'Cos if he had....we could compare his signature with that on his death warrant or something.

There is no question IMHO that the tough nut to crack with GH is why he didn't run to the police the day after Kelly's murder.

Why would he? The story on the street was hardly pointing at Kelly for a while. There is no reason at all to beleive that GH heard Kelly was killed. Even if he had heard Millers Court, without Kelly being named in the press or something specifically as the dead woman, it could have been Prater or anyone.

Indeed with rumours going round presumably that Kelly had been seen alive the next day why would he think she was dead?

Plus, when people like Eddowes were using similar names as Kelly as aliases, why would the death of a Mary Kelly make him think it was his one at all?

All of the above could have precipitated a delay.

Not to mention his logical fear at being fingered even if he wasnt guilty.

Or the fact that it was common knowledge that the Ripper had apparently been threatening witnesses.

Not to mention the fact that we KNOW for certain that many witnesses never come forward or come forward late.

Otherwise we wouldnt have shows like Crimewatch and reconstructions. Or are we to think that everyone answering these shows appeals are guilty for not coming forward?

or just victim to the entirely human, well established, psychologically proven fact that we don't want to get involved. Thats why drunks or sick peoplel lie in the street as respectable people walk by. Or women are advised to shout "fire" rather than "rape" when attacked.

All of the above are good enouogh reasons not to come forward until he had thought about it and eventually did the decent thing.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Why would he? The story on the street was hardly pointing at Kelly for a while.
I dunno... Mrs Elizabeth Phoenix came forward the day after the murder to identify Kelly, and she lived quite some distance away from the scene of the crime. Hutchinson practically lived around the corner.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

Well I suppose your version would work....assuming GH met Mrs Phoenix and not one the others saying it wasnt Kelly or they didnt know or he hadnt read teh papers or whatever.

Plus....even if he did know for certainty it was Kelly and wasnt waiting to make sure..... your version still doesnt remove all the otehr reasons for coming forward late.

Those being probably the same ones as keep, and have kept, people from coming forward for hundreds of years.

p

[Nemo]

I was interested in the speculation that Hutchinson was Fleming

Does Toppy being Hutch end this speculation, or is there a possibility that Joe Fleming was an alias of George Hutchinson?

On another note - it would only take one or two East End residents to forward and say they know Hutchinson was a teller of lies for the police to lose faith in his story and for him to be discredited

I think the big mystery is why he wasn't number one suspect having admitted to loitering outside Millers Court at or very near the time of death - and having his explanation discredited

Very strange

[Sam Flynn]

Hi SamF

Well I suppose your version would work....assuming GH met Mrs PhoenixIt doesn't need that at all, MrP. Elizabeth Phoenix, who lived at Bow, went to Leman Street station after hearing a description of Kelly, and volunteered her information. She did so on 11th November, so I was in error earlier when I said it was the following day... but she still beat Hutchinson to it.

Hutchinson's tardiness remains to be explained. The victim's name was splashed all over practically every paper in the land by the 10th November, and it's inconceivable that someone living or working in the immediate vicinity of the murder would not have heard about her - whether they read the papers or not. Particularly one who claimed to be on first name terms with the deceased, to have been in her company, and who said he had given her a few shillings on occasion.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

This is probably one of the least intractable problems in ripperology.

All one has to do is toddle down to your local cop shop and ask them why do all witnesses not come forward immedialtly and some never.

p

[Caroline Morris]

If Hutch deliberately put off coming forward at his earliest opportunity (although there's no real evidence that he did), we only have to consider the conspicuous absence of Carroty Whiskers at the cop shop to give us a very likely explanation.

No man in Mary's company that night would have come forward unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to admit as much (or claim as much), unless he was due for a check up from the neck up - but especially not if he was married and/or 'respectable', or had been using Mary's services, or - worst of all - had been in the room with her at a compromising hour. Hanging about outside, for all the world as though waiting to go in as soon as it became vacant, at an even more compromising hour - ie much closer to Diddles's wake-up call - would have required a bit more of Hutch than thinking on his feet while running straight to the old bill, the second that news of the murder reached his ears and he realised it was Mary. It's a wonder he didn't have it away on his toes in a Romford direction, or just stay well away, like Carroty Whiskers evidently did.

Taking a bit of time to work on a description of a man who was still supposedly with the victim after Hutch had left the scene at 3am was a pretty smart move in principle, if he feared he had been seen there and would otherwise be suspected of being the 'last man in'. If he also feared the real killer (eg whoever may have been in the room when he arrived and found Mary engaged) might take revenge for grassing him up, a very detailed invented description - appearing in the papers - was also a pretty smart move. The real killer would be slapping him on the back for it, assuming it was nothing like him, rather than stabbing him in the back.

If nothing else, the man had guts and a solid pair of balls to come forward when he did. But I seriously doubt he ever had female guts or a womb on his person.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Taking a bit of time to work on a description of a man who was still supposedly with the victim after Hutch had left the scene at 3am was a pretty smart move in principle, if he feared he had been seen there and would otherwise be suspected as the 'last man in'.
According to the man himself, however, he had already told a policeman and a friend at the lodging-house, before he trundled into the nick to give his statement. That being the case, at least two others (one of whom was a constable) would have been in a position to finger him as the "last man in", a day or more before he made his formal approach to the police. This would seem an incredibly stupid move on his part, if it were true. If it was true, then he evidently had no great qualms about admitting to being "last man in" in the first place!

[Caroline Morris]

Ooh sorry, Sam, I was still editing my post before I saw your latest, so you might like to see the new bits that followed on from the part you quoted.

Could you explain what material difference it would make if Hutch the Innocent really did blurt out something of the story to a beat copper and fellow lodger before finally stepping into the nick and making the statement that has been passed down to us?

If true, it could only have made his need greater to work on a way to undermine any possible fingering going on by said copper or lodger in the wake of his revelations to them. If false, he was presumably trying to limit the damage of his tardy appearance by claiming that he did tell these people sooner.

It would only have been an incredibly stupid move on his part if it had been both true and he knew he really was the last man in.

The only incredibly stupid move was coming forward at all, if he didn't know that someone else had most definitely been with Mary after he left the court himself around 3am.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Could you explain what material difference it would make if Hutch the Innocent really did blurt out something of the story to a beat copper and fellow lodger before finally stepping into the nick and making the statement that has been passed down to us?He'd have run the risk of the beat copper and/or the lodger grassing him up as the "last man in", Caz. As I said, that's if what he claimed apropos telling the copper/lodger was true to start with.If false, he was presumably trying to limit the damage of his tardy appearance by claiming that he did tell these people sooner.I favour that explanation.It would only have been an incredibly stupid move on his part if it had been both true and he knew he really was the last man in.Which is why we should treat everything he said with at least a little caution.The only incredibly stupid move was coming forward at all, if he didn't know that someone else had most definitely been with Mary after he left the court himself around 3am.In which case the clever bit was to pointedly put somebody else in there with her after he'd left the scene. "I stayed there three quarters of an hour to see if they came out... they did not, so I went away".

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

Ok, so let's suppose it was true and Hutch did 'run the risk of the beat copper and/or the lodger grassing him up as the "last man in"'. People do rash things all the time and only start to stew about the possible consequences later. In this case, it might well have resulted in an innocent Hutch deciding he'd better flesh out a story about the real last man in and take it direct to the cop shop this time.

I don't see how that in any way negates my basic argument that any man - innocent or otherwise - would be naturally hesitant about giving a formal account of himself, once he fully realised the implications of putting himself (for nearly an hour, for God's sake) so close to the scene of Mary Kelly's murder, and at the eleventh hour too.

I happen to believe the police were not total idiots and would have treated everything said by a witness in that position with more than 'a little caution'. Abberline would hardly have gone to the trouble of stating his opinion that Hutch was being truthful if he hadn't been mindful of the alternative possibility at every step of the way.

Everything you say can be explained by an innocent Hutch arriving at Mary's door, only to find her already 'occupied'; waiting and waiting because his only alternative was a night out on the damp streets; and eventually giving up, having no clue that while he was cursing his own bad luck, the man who failed to emerge may well have been butchering the helpless woman inside.

Not hard to have a conscience about it afterwards, but very hard to come forward if you are the only one who knows Mary had a man in with her after you left. And if you can't describe him, or nobody believes you, and you were the last man seen lurking, what then?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz,Everything you say can be explained by an innocent Hutch arriving at Mary's door, only to find her already 'occupied'; waiting and waiting because his only alternative was a night out on the damp streets.That still doesn't adequately explain his delay in coming forward, however.And if you can't describe him, or nobody believes you, and you were the last man seen lurking, what then?Unless there were a real danger of Hutchinson's having been recognised, I can't see why he should have come forward at all. Perhaps, like Violenia or Packer, he was just sensation-seeking, looking to make a few bob on the side, or a combination of the two. Both of those explanations are arguably less complicated than those typically advanced in respect of his being at the scene.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Perhaps, like Violenia or Packer, he was just sensation-seeking, looking to make a few bob on the side, or a combination of the two.

Is there anyone putting forth the theory that GH wasn't even outside Kelly's room that night, i.e. that the entire story is a confabulation ?

(I'm not suggesting it, just asking.)

[Sam Flynn]

Is there anyone putting forth the theory that GH wasn't even outside Kelly's room that night, i.e. that the entire story is a confabulation ?I incline to that interpretation, Rob. If you're going to confabulate, it strikes me that two days' worth of reading the newspaper reports for nuggets of "plausible" info (e.g. mysterious parcels, height of suspect, respectable appearance, manner of attire etc. etc.) would be a useful way of spending one's time.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I incline to that interpretation, Rob. If you're going to confabulate, it strikes me that two days' worth of reading the newspaper reports for nuggets of "plausible" info (e.g. mysterious parcels, height of suspect, respectable appearance, manner of attire etc. etc.) would be a useful way of spending one's time.

Dangerous as all Hell, in my opinion. Wouldn't it have been enough for him to say he'd seen Kelly talking to a potential client, describe AM and leave it at that ? Why say he stood vigil unless he did ?

[Caroline Morris]

Unless there were a real danger of Hutchinson's having been recognised, I can't see why he should have come forward at all. Perhaps, like Violenia or Packer, he was just sensation-seeking, looking to make a few bob on the side, or a combination of the two. Both of those explanations are arguably less complicated than those typically advanced in respect of his being at the scene.

Hi Sam,

But the fact is he did come forward, and not as promptly as he should/could have done. I don't think it can be assumed that he considered there was a real danger of being recognised/identified as Lewis's lurker, since all the evidence suggests that he never was. But coming forward and lying about being there at all, let alone for nearly an hour of loitering (and claiming it to be without 'intent'), would have been most unwise, whether or not he knew that a man had been seen doing just that.

If he did know Mary, as he claimed, but came late and told a pack of lies, just for the attention and the hope of earning a dishonest bob, the man clearly had no conscience at all. Not much better if he'd never met the woman in his life.

But if he knew her and the bones of his tale were true, he would surely have felt terrible about leaving her to the mercy of God knows who in that room. But I can well understand him being naturally hesitant about doing his duty, or telling the plain unvarnished truth, considering the precarious position it would necessarily put him in.

Also, what tends to be forgotten in this medium, is Hutch's body language and speaking manner under questioning. Did he come across as confident and cocky; nervous but earnest; or was he totally crapping himself? Maybe Abberline detected a man who was punishing himself for what had happened and was showing courage in the circumstances by trying to make amends. Maybe Hutch just overdid the 'co-operation' bit.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

But the fact is he did come forward, and not as promptly as he should/could have done.Absolutely, Caz - and when he did eventually come forward, it was with a story taller than Joe Flemming's frame!I don't think it can be assumed that he considered there was a real danger of being recognised/identified as Lewis's lurkerThe presence of Lewis's lurker wasn't made public until the inquest, as far as we know - which constitutes a bit of tight squeeze, if it were indeed the catalyst for Hutchinson's breaking his silence. It has been suggested that Hutch may have attended the inquest in person and heard about the lurker there, or that the jungle grapevine alerted him to the fact - both of which are possible, but neither of which can be taken as givens.

This brings us to an important point. Namely, the fact that Hutchinson's statement doesn't so much as hint at Sarah Lewis's arrival at Miller's Court casts a degree of doubt on (a) whether he'd heard about "lurker" story - at the inquest or otherwise; and (b) whether he was ever "lurking" around Miller's Court at all.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Rob,Why say he stood vigil unless he did ?As a device for cementing the fact that he was definitely not the "last man in", perhaps? And to establish that the person to whom that particular accolade belonged was with Kelly for a significant - and "plausible" - amount of time?

Compare the Star of the 10th November, writing about Kelly's murder:

"Between the hours of one and four nothing which may be termed unusual occurred." [Hutchinson ostensibly says he was out of the way by 3 AM.]

The the same edition of the same paper comes up with what might be seen as some key components of the Hutchinson story:

"A young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself". [Compare: "Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence... I must go and find some money".]

The same paragraph continues: "Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings". [I could have underlined all of that last bit!]

Ring any bells?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Just in case this slips into erroneous useage...

If you're going to confabulate

One cannot decide to confabulate. It happens or it doesnt. One isnt actually aware one is doing it. Thats the whole point.

and when he did eventually come forward, it was with a story taller than Joe Flemming's frame!

Its never actually been proved his story was anything other than he remembered or thought he remembered it. If it was a tall tale then one must assume it was a lie? Which, if it was, has to have been the dumbest lie ever told, by the dumbest bast@rd ever, to the dumbest police force ever, who were watched by the dumbest newspapers ever, who were read by the dumbest public ever.

It has been suggested that Hutch may have attended the inquest in person and heard about the lurker there

If he was at the inquest then surely his story would have been a more beleivable tale involving Blotchy in whom the inquest evinced much more interest than pretty much anything else..

whether he was ever "lurking" around Miller's Court at all.

A reasonable point indeed.

"A young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself". [Compare: "Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence... I must go and find some money".]

Out of curiosity....what sort of berk would say he was standing there and he saw her and all that if he read in the press that it was actually someone else who could no doubt pop up and say "Hey George! Thats my story!".

Or perhaps the press had gotten wind of GH's story when he told it to someone earlier than on the 12th? And they just cocked it up?

Which is more likely. GH risking telling someone elses tale (in which they no doubt took much pride given the attention) or that he told the truth about informing someone about his tale prior to his statment and the press arsed it up?

p

[Stephen Thomas]

Its never actually been proved his story was anything other than he remembered or thought he remembered it. If it was a tall tale then one must assume it was a lie? Which, if it was, has to have been the dumbest lie ever told, by the dumbest bast@rd ever, to the dumbest police force ever, who were watched by the dumbest newspapers ever, who were read by the dumbest public ever.


Thanks MrP

My thoughts entirely.

Why potentially put your neck in the noose when you could just lay low or leg it?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Thanks MrP

My thoughts entirely.

Why potentially put your neck in the noose when you could just lay low or leg it?

I think the fundamental divide here is between those of us who think strolling into the police station could easily have proved fatal, and those that don't.

[Sam Flynn]

Why potentially put your neck in the noose when you could just lay low or leg it?£££££s, five minutes of fame? Was he really putting his head in the noose, given that he wasn't admitting to being the "last man in"? Indeed, he made it abundantly clear that he'd left a man "in there" with Kelly.

Again, look at those snippets from the Star of the 10th November - as well as the descriptions given by Lewis/Roney/Kennedy and Fiddymont, not to mention PC Smith earlier in the series.

[SirRobertAnderson]

£££££s, five minutes of fame? Was he really putting his head in the noose, given that he wasn't admitting to being the "last man in"?

I think this is a point we can never resolve to each others satisfaction.

I'm NOT saying you belong to the school that denigrates the brain power of the Victorian era police. But it is pretty clear that the police of the day would have given great weight to Kelly's murderer being a friend, lover or acquaintance. Even today most murder victims are whacked at home by someone they know. Do you really believe that GH didn't become a suspect as soon as they realized his story didn't stand up ? It could easily have gone very badly for him.

Obviously there was something that exonerated him, and we'll never know what that was. But with all the pressure from the Queen on down to find SOMEONE, I don't have a problem imagining a less ethical Abberline greasing the skids for GH.

[Mr. Poster]

hi SirBOb

I think the fundamental divide here is between those of us who think strolling into the police station could easily have proved fatal, and those that don't.

Its hard for me to envisage a situation whereby his wandering in there with his tale did not involve a fatal risk.

If not impossible. Given that he was by his own admission the man lurking outside her flat, as she was probably being killed, who was seen by someone, who knew the victim, who was late in coming forward, who was "only" a wroking class man, from the area, with no good alibi coming into a police station chock full of police who were under super pressure to nail someone (anyone?) or at least buy themselves some time by jailing GH and announcing that they had someone in custody and not forgetting that given the reception Squibby got, even if GH was arrested and released as a time buying ploy....GH ran th erisk of being lynched by some kind of Life of Brian stoning mob once he left the confines of the cop shop.

Hi ho SamF

Was he really putting his head in the noose, given that he wasn't admitting to being the "last man in"? Indeed, he made it abundantly clear that he'd left a man "in there" with Kelly.

You really think thath the sincere assurances of the man described above that he wasnt the killer were enough to remove his head from the noose?

What an innocent time it must have been in the LVP where the last man known to have seen the victim, who knew her, who was late in coming forward and all that can assuage the polices suspicions by his straightfaced assertions that some one else was in there.......a regular legalistic Garden of Eden it must have been.

And yet again we are left with the complete lack of an argument, in the abscence of CCTV, DNA methods or anything else beyond being caught with a knife in your hand and a dead whore at yer feet, for why GH didnt just leg it like gazillions of other criminals then, now and in the future instead of wandering into the welcoming arms of a less than benign police force and the full glare of a hysterical public.

p

[Sam Flynn]

I'm NOT saying you belong to the school that denigrates the brain power of the Victorian era police.Thanks, Robert - and I don't. I am aware, however, that people - be they police or not - can be fooled, no matter how clever they are. There's no great shame in that.Do you really believe that GH didn't become a suspect as soon as they realized his story didn't stand up ? It could easily have gone very badly for him.

Obviously there was something that exonerated him, and we'll never know what that was. It would depend pretty much on the nature of the exoneration. If, for example, it was the Victoria Home proprietors or residents saying that Hutchinson had checked in at 1.30 on the morning in question and had never left his cubicle, or somebody claiming they'd put Hutchinson "up to it" for a lark, that might cover things off neatly - it would also explain the apparent rapidity with which Hutchinson's story was discredited by the police.

Some seem to think that Hutchinson would *definitely* have been risking life and limb if he so much as approached the police with that story - but that isn't necessarily so. If Hutchinson knew he had a concrete alibi after all, then the case for his "putting his head in the noose" disappears.

[Caroline Morris]

You really think thath the sincere assurances of the man described above that he wasnt the killer were enough to remove his head from the noose?

What an innocent time it must have been in the LVP where the last man known to have seen the victim, who knew her, who was late in coming forward and all that can assuage the polices suspicions by his straightfaced assertions that some one else was in there.......a regular legalistic Garden of Eden it must have been.

Hi Mr P,

Not forgetting that this man, with his sincere assurances, had (according to some) not only offered a quaintly trusting police force a suitably surly villain with knife-shaped parcel, seen picking up an 1888 Whitechapel unfortunate after midnight ("bingo!"), but this Rip-U-Quik merchant aroused only the (bone) idle curiosity of the luckless woman's so-called friend - not a hint of any evil intent - and then blow me down he performs a quick change act with his moustache and complexion in time for his appearance in the papers, shortly before vanishing into thin air, leaving a small pile of fairy dust on the police station doormat.

And still they don't see the rat droppings from door to desk and back again?

Not on my watch.

I strongly suspect, as Sam suggests, that in the course of their routine plodding duties the police found reason to eliminate Hutch from their murder enquiries, along with his panto villain. A reliable witness or three putting him in Romford on one or more of the murder nights would have done it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

hi SamF

Some seem to think that Hutchinson would *definitely* have been risking life and limb if he so much as approached the police with that story - but that isn't necessarily so. If Hutchinson knew he had a concrete alibi after all, then the case for his "putting his head in the noose" disappears.

I try to get this straight.... if GH showed up and wasn't at risk of a neck stretching...that means he had an alibi and was innocent?

Thats fine by me. But on the other hand, if he showed up and was without alibi, then he was risking being hung. In which case he would have to be retarded on a level rarely seen to choose this ridiculous option as opposed to (here it is again) adopting the usual, tried and tested, loved by criminals world over, entirely natural, much easier in the LVP method of just vanishing.

And if he didnt vanish then, and adopted this retarded tactic, when it all went pear shaped and he couldnt find his man and was "discredited" ...... why not vanish then?

BUt no...he hung around for years as your own researches seem to confirm.

Hi ho Caz

Not forgetting that this man, with his sincere assurances, had (according to some) not only offered a quaintly trusting police force a suitably surly villain with knife-shaped parcel, seen picking up an 1888 Whitechapel unfortunate after midnight ("bingo!"), but this Rip-U-Quik merchant aroused only the (bone) idle curiosity of his victim's friend - not a hint of any evil intent - and then blow me down he performs quick change act with his moustache and complexion in time for his appearance in the papers, shortly before vanishing into thin air, leaving a small pile of fairy dust on the police station doormat.

These days I am beginning to wonder why I bother on GH threads at all when but a moments logical consideration of GH in the abscence of Hollywood driven nonsense makes his being guilty of anything more serious than wasting police time so patently nonsensical.

p

[Sam Flynn]

I try to get this straight.... if GH showed up and wasn't at risk of a neck stretching...that means he had an alibi and was innocent?Apart from being a bit cart-before-horse, that's broadly how I see it, MrP.Thats fine by me. But on the other hand, if he showed up and was without alibi, then he was risking being hung.Not at all, if the police had nothing but his story to go on. They had no evidence to place him at Miller's Court other than that story, which left another man - a man who resembled other descriptions in wide circulation at that very time - in the room with Kelly. The police certainly had no physical evidence to incriminate Hutchinson, at a time when, if Don Rumbelow and others are correct, such evidence was a prerequisite for a conviction to be made.BUt no...he hung around for years as your own researches seem to confirm.So, presumably, did Packer, Violenia and god-knows how many other false witnesses in this, and many other, cases. Spinning a yarn to the cops would hardly have resulted in Hutchinson's being tarred, feathered and chased out of the East End by a howling, torch-bearing mob.

By the way, Hutchinson was lodging in West Central London (Warren Street - no connection!) by 1891, before moving back to the East End, and settling there. Not that I'm suggesting that he immediately high-tailed it out of Spitalfields on account of his putative shaggy-dog story being found out.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

And here we diverge....

Not at all, if the police had nothing but his story to go on. They had no evidence to place him at Miller's Court other than that story, which left another man - a man who resembled other descriptions in wide circulation at that very time - in the room with Kelly. The police certainly had no physical evidence to incriminate Hutchinson, at a time when, if Don Rumbelow and others are correct, such evidence was a prerequisite for a conviction to be made.

What? If he showed up at the station and made a statement to the fact that he was there PLUS Lewis saw him......thats plenty for the police to go on.

Its a confession that he was lurking outside her apartment at around the time she was killed. And he knew her.

Thats plenty for them to "go on" seeing as they were "going on" a damn sight less for Squibby and others and lets not forget that irrespective of Donald Rumbelow...unless GH had a startling insight into what it exactly took to get a conviction........then it hardly seem slogical to conclude that GH was taking the risk of the not having anything to "go on".

Donald Rumbelows no doubt sound conclusions of course forget the fact that a confession would do nicely and confessions have been known to be extracted from people by methods other than a heart to heart to chit chat and assurances of fair play.

And quite often have been extracted from people with a lot less going for them than having been the last person to see the victim alive, confessed to lurking and were seen.

So you'll have to excuse my skepticism as to GH being safe based on Dons assurances about what the police needed in light of the fact that what they needed and what they could get out of GH by kicking him round a cell for a day or two are pretty much the same.

And if someone tells me they "wouldnt be kicking anyone" I will laugh given that I doubt shooting protesters appeared in the police Guide to Good Practice of the time.

Not to mention that GH not only had the police to fear but also the tender mercies of the East End public who had already proved themselves quite apt to chasing people down streets because they had an evil eye or pelting poor sods like Squibby with rocks.

So if the police had to release the last man seen, who lurked, and was seen lurking because the "had nothing to go on" and would have been obliged to tell the politicans and public that....... I doubt GH would consider himself home free just yet.

Seeing as he was most likely going to a right kicking when he went home. If he dared to.

Which of course...he did.

So all the stuff about the police "having" to do anything or "having nothing to go on" doesnt wash....because its not what they had that matters....its what they were likely to get by having GH in a cell for a while.

And I am sure a man like GH or anyother working class man had a fair idea of the sort of treatment he could expect in a police station staffed by the type of people who were featuring quite strongly in the public mind for their...."softly softly" approach.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Plus.....its a bit hard to take Donald Rumbelows assertions as to what was needed for a conviction at all seriously when poor old Florrie Maybrick was heading for the scaffold on a hell of a lot less than "physical evidence",

p

[Mr. Poster]

Sorry sorry sorry...

So, presumably, did Packer, Violenia and god-knows how many other false witnesses in this, and many other, cases. Spinning a yarn to the cops would hardly have resulted in Hutchinson's being tarred, feathered and chased out of the East End by a howling, torch-bearing mob.

False witnesses who were hardly seen lurking outside a victims house at pretty much the time she was getting killed.

Packer et al are weak comparisons if comparsions at all given that at least Packers wife provided him probably with an alibi.

A luxury GH did not appraently have.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Plus.....its a bit hard to take Donald Rumbelows assertions as to what was needed for a conviction at all seriously when poor old Florrie Maybrick was heading for the scaffold on a hell of a lot less than "physical evidence"
The presence of arsenic in James Maybrick's corpse and Florie's purchase, just before her husband's death, of arsenic-laden flypapers - which she then soaked in water - would indicate the contrary.

[Sam Flynn]

Packer et al are weak comparisonsDepends what you're comparing. As bullshitters who regaled the police with flowered-up and/or fictitious information, based on either fiscal or sensation-seeking motives, they are rather good.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi SamF

Unless you want to contend that Packer et al could actually have killed the women ....then the comparisons are weak.

And I doubt even your goodself would bother trying to come up with a scenario where our aged grape flogger did Stride in.

The presence of arsenic in James Maybrick's corpse and Florie's purchase, just before her husband's death, of arsenic-laden flypapers - which she then soaked in water - would indicate the contrary.

Not at a time when arsenic had many purposes round the house.

At any rate, I am encouraged (although not surprised) that the main thrust of my arguments could not be countered.

Not that I really expected them to be ...but hope lives eternal.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Unless you want to contend that Packer et al could actually have killed the women ....then the comparisons are weak. I don't, MrP - I mentioned Packer and Violenia purely to demonstrate the potential motives for approaching the police or press with a cock and bull story.Not at a time when arsenic had many purposes round the house. Presumably, soaking fly-papers in order to extract the arsenic was something that everybody did on a daily basis.

[SirRobertAnderson]

The presence of arsenic in James Maybrick's corpse and Florie's purchase, just before her husband's death, of arsenic-laden flypapers - which she then soaked in water - would indicate the contrary.

Ooooh......I smell Maybrick on a GH thread...which perhaps is appropriate because I keep saying Hutch is the new Maybrick...

Anyhow, it does not appear that Maybrick had enough arsenic in his body at the time of death to be lethal. (And of course the presence of the substance should not be a surprise.) It is possible that he was murdered by not being given his fix, BTW.

[Sam Flynn]

Ooooh......I smell Maybrick on a GH thread...
Sorry, Bob - I'll try not to mention him here again! Discussing Hutch and you-know-who together might start a chain reaction, or at least get us into something approaching a critical mess :)

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sorry, Bob - I'll try not to mention him here again! Discussing Hutch and you-know-who together might start a chain reaction, or at least get us into something approaching a critical mess :)

You're tickling the dragon, my friend. And we know how that ends....

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=102

After World War 2, a few of the Manhattan Project scientists remained on duty at Los Alamos to further explore the behaviors and potential of nuclear technology. Among them was Dr. Louis Slotin, who in his own words was kept around because he was "one of the few people left here who are experienced bomb putter-togetherers."

During his time there, Dr. Slotin's duties were to perform criticality tests on fissile uranium and plutonium. The tests required him to bring two half-spheres of the radioactive materials into close proximity, and measure the beginnings of the fission reaction. This way, scientists could indirectly determine the critical mass of the material without actually starting a nuclear chain reaction. Slotin's preferred method of keeping the two hemispheres separated was an ordinary screwdriver, because he had a strong distrust of automated safety systems.

Dr. Richard Feynman, a fellow Los Alamos scientist, had remarked that these criticality tests were "tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon," because they brought the fissile materials so close to a dangerous critical mass.

[Caroline Morris]

False witnesses who were hardly seen lurking outside a victims house at pretty much the time she was getting killed.

Packer et al are weak comparisons if comparsions at all given that at least Packers wife provided him probably with an alibi.


And of course, Packer had a solid gold legitimate reason for being where he was and doing what he was doing at the time of his claimed sighting, even with everything else about his story being discounted. Had he been loitering for an hour in the rain by someone else's fruit and veg, out of idle curiosity about a man who allegedly bought grapes for his "friend" Liz before taking her up the side passage of the club, things might have been different.


The presence of arsenic in James Maybrick's corpse and Florie's purchase, just before her husband's death, of arsenic-laden flypapers - which she then soaked in water - would indicate the contrary.

What, you mean the tiny amount of arsenic they found left in his body after days laid up in bed unable to dose himself, which was not enough to kill Diddles? And the flypapers Florie was seen soaking - which, on their own, would again not have yielded enough arsenic to make Diddles sick?

What do you think she was doing in any case, fannying around with a few flypapers in full view of a servant, if she knew about the mountain of arsenic later found hidden around the house?


Presumably, soaking fly-papers in order to extract the arsenic was something that everybody did on a daily basis.

Long after her conviction, an old prescription of Florie's was finally found tucked inside her bible, for a face wash containing arsenic, just as she had always claimed. I'm sure at least one witness in court testified to the practice of using arsenic extracted from flypapers to make up a lotion for clearing the complexion.

Anyway, back to Hutch. You may be on slightly surer ground with him! :kiss:

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

This way, scientists could indirectly determine the critical mass of the material without actually starting a nuclear chain reaction. Slotin's preferred method of keeping the two hemispheres separated was an ordinary screwdriver, because he had a strong distrust of automated safety systems.

Interestingly enough.....screwdrivers have a long and noble history in the field of nuclear science.

Oppenheimer was once asked at a closed senate committee on what instrument he would recommend could be used to try and detect if someone had smuggled a nuclear weapon into the United States. His reply was "a screwdriver".

p