First Ripper thread - Hutch suspicion

[Matt Hood]

I know Hutch is a possible suspect for at least Mary Kelly's murder, for some people (myself included) but I had a thought the other evening after watching 'The Definitive Story'. Could he have been an accomplice?

The scenario where he helped MJK's killer, involves him a. acting as a look out while "AM" and MJK are in her room and b. giving a dodgy description to the police so they go off looking for the wrong person. All for money, of course.

I initially thought that perhaps Hutch was also Pipeman, as seen on the corner of Berner St. by Israel Schwartz, but as I found out yesterday their descrptions don't match. Schwartz said Pipeman was "tall..." and "not so stout" while Lewis said Wideawake-Hat Man was "not tall - but stout" So Pipeman and Hutch are likely not the same person.

But I don't think that rules Hutch out from being a crony on the 9th November.

This is my first look into the WM since 1999, so apologies if I'm retreading old ground or anything!

[Robert Linford]

Hi Matt


The trouble I have with Hutch lookout theories is : suppose he saw someone coming along Dorset St. What precisely was he going to do?

[Wicker Man]

Thats the main problem with the 'lookout' theory, it appears to presume they had walkie-talkties.

Otherwise, how does Hutch hope to alert the murderer and not draw attention to himself by suddenly dashing across the street and down the passage, whistling, or hollering, "there's a cop, get the f**k outa there!!!"

As if no-one would notice.

[Matt Hood]

Well, I'm not imagining him stood on the street making bird calls or screeching like a howler monkey or anything!

As I said, part of the inspiration for this was wondering if Hutchinson could also have been Pipeman. Pipeman, if Schwartz's interpretation of his actions is correct, chased Schwartz off.
I can imagine H either doing the same thing on the 9th Nov. or, at least, running interference and chatting to/distracting any passing Peelers.

[Wicker Man]

The thing about Pipeman was if he chased away a witness then his intent was only to stop interference in whatever was taking place. It didn't prevent that 'chased off' witness from reporting what he saw to police.
So what good did it do?


If a murder is taking place as an accomplice surely you want to get rid of a witness - you don't want a witness to speak to police.
Chasing them away achieves nothing.
If Hutch was present to only chase away witnesses he wouldn't be out in the street where he couldn't see any witnesses moving around inside the court.
From where he was he couldn't keep people away from the scene nor could he alert anyone inside room 13 about any danger.
So, what was the point?

No matter which way you look at it the theory has too many holes in it.

[Robert Linford]

Since the murder was taking place indoors, and the mutilations ditto, Hutch would only have needed to be on lookout for the few seconds of the murder. He wouldn't have needed to worry thereafter, e.g. about a policeman entering the Court, since a policeman wasn't going to seek admittance to a dead quiet room. The only thing that Hutch might have worried about was if someone actually living in the room came back late and wanted to get in. But that would have been unlikely and besides, Hutch wasn't going to stop them without making an almighty row.

[Anna Morris]

I just cannot get the feel that JtR had an accomplice. I think when, after MJKś murder, a reward was offered that would exonerate an accomplice, this was aimed at someone who lived with or otherwise might know about the killer*ś* activities. *(For some reason my key with the quote marks is stuck. Maybe cracker crumbs or something. For a couple days I have not been able to use contractions, in case my writing is looking a bit formal. Until I solve my problem, if I HAVE to use one of those marks I will use *.)

The Ripper crimes were not of the nature that tend to involve more than one killer/mutilator. Especially concerning the mutilations, this is the sort of thing done by lone psychopaths.

If Hutch was the accomplice/look out, why did he ever come forward? To give a faulty description of his friend? Some say Hutch came forward belatedly because he was seen across the street but so far as we know there was not enough detail given to say, *George Hutchinson,* so why not keep quiet? Or make up some bigger story, turn in his friend and claim the reward and immunity?

We have the general idea we know what JtR looked like; like Prince Eddie, Druitt, James Kelly or Hutch*s Mr. A. Soon after Hutch had given his information, a citizen tracked a fellow with carroty whiskers to an address and made a report to police. The police said they were looking for a man of a very different description. So maybe Hutch actually saw Mr. A. just as described. If Hutch was a look-out, then he could have been giving away his accomplice.

Now, going just a bit off topic, I have had a different thought about Hutchinson. It does not directly address the questions raised here but if there is anything to this thought, it argues against Hutch as look-out.

Hutch viewed Mary*ś remains, I suppose for identification purposes, but sometimes after heinous crimes, people WANT to view grisly remains for thrills. Or might Hutch have reported to someone that it really was Mary? Might he have seen nothing on the night in question but claimed to have done in order to view her remains?

Just a stray thought to further confuse the subject.

[Phillip Walton]

I've always had my doubts about his testimony, it seems to good to be true. Either he was involved in the murder or he wasn't there at all.

[Wicker Man]

If a lookout was only needed for a few seconds then the proposal needs to justify why he stood there for at least 45 minutes.

[Matt Hood]

and b. giving a dodgy description to the police so they go off looking for the wrong person

Just quoting this part of my op, as it seems to have been missed.
I really should have either wrote "and/or" or separated the ideas completely, so apologies.

Anyway, the other option/part of his possible crony status is to basically be a ringer witness.

"AM" tells Hutch he'll give him money if he acts as a witness to him picking Mary/someone up* and gives a false description if asked.

*Motive: he basically spins a tale about not wanting to be seen, offers enough cash that Hutch can't resist and says to be at DS by 2am. "I'll give you the money after I've had my fun!"

Hutch does as asked, luckily for "AM" as Sarah Lewis sees him too. He waits about for his pay, gets fed up of waiting and heads off.
He then does exactly what he told the police & tries to track "AM" down over the weekend, hoping he'll say he didn't do it and give him his cash.
Finally gives up on Monday, but still hoping for the money he hesitates too long to go to the inquest and has to go to the police instead.

I do understand that this is a bit of a reach and that Hutchinson either had to be incredibly gullible, incredibly greedy or plain old hate MJK an awful lot to help her killer.

Soon after Hutch had given his information, a citizen tracked a fellow with carroty whiskers to an address and made a report to police. The police said they were looking for a man of a very different description. So maybe Hutch actually saw Mr. A. just as described. If Hutch was a look-out, then he could have been giving away his accomplice.

Wasn't the guy with the carroty whiskers Mr. Blotchy, rather than AM? Other than that, your idea regarding Hutch being a more determined-than-most gawker who went above and beyond to get a look at Mary's remains doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

[Matt Hood]

Edited my last post to be a bit more clear (the perils of posting on a forum from a Playstation! Would not recommend.)

And I think I'm done with this. I just had a listen to the Rippercast episode about Georgie boy and, frankly, Hutch's story in the case is convoluted enough without me making it more so! Apologies, everyone!

[Jason Spencer]

If a lookout was only needed for a few seconds then the proposal needs to justify why he stood there for at least 45 minutes.

I seem to recall once reading someone?s theory that he was perhaps quite smitten with Kelly and so there is every chance, if we assume this to be true for the sake of argument, that he stood there watching out of little more than simple human jealousy, or the hope of going in afterwards to see her.

[Sean Robbins]

I know Hutch is a possible suspect for at least Mary Kelly's murder, for some people (myself included) but I had a thought the other evening after watching 'The Definitive Story'. Could he have been an accomplice?

The scenario where he helped MJK's killer, involves him a. acting as a look out while "AM" and MJK are in her room and b. giving a dodgy description to the police so they go off looking for the wrong person. All for money, of course.

I initially thought that perhaps Hutch was also Pipeman, as seen on the corner of Berner St. by Israel Schwartz, but as I found out yesterday their descrptions don't match. Schwartz said Pipeman was "tall..." and "not so stout" while Lewis said Wideawake-Hat Man was "not tall - but stout" So Pipeman and Hutch are likely not the same person.

But I don't think that rules Hutch out from being a crony on the 9th November.

This is my first look into the WM since 1999, so apologies if I'm retreading old ground or anything!

In 1909 when again a woman was murdered in Miller's Court, Kitty Ronan who appears to have been a sex worker killed by her client, bizarrely a 'Hutchison' like figure turns up again. Standing outside the premises, seeing the man the woman is with and able to describe him to the police. This time a marker porter aged 19 named Alfred Wilkins.

*If* Miller's Court was a working brothel and *if* the local law employed by the lodging house owners were meant to provide the employees with some protection, then this apparent coincidence can be explained.

Hutchinson not coming forward until after the inquest becomes the part which needs to be explained.

This scenario, if accepted, adds an extra possibility though. That if Hutchison was not being entirely truthful, he may have been doing so not to protect the murderer but to protect his employer(s).

[Wicker Man]

...

Hutchinson not coming forward until after the inquest becomes the part which needs to be explained.

I think it can be explained.
It would have helped of course if Hutch have given the reason he came forward as part of his initial statement to Badham.

I don't think the reason is any more mysterious than he simply saw, or learned from others, of a detail that came out of the inquest.

The Star evening paper came out early evening, quite often the Star reporter would leave an inquest prematurely to make the evening edition with his report.

I don't know, but I suspect Hutchinson learned about the description of the murderer from the Star.

THE MURDERER DESCRIBED.

This story was followed by a paragraph describing who the witness Mary Ann Cox saw entering the house with Mary Kelly at 11:45 pm, Thursday night.
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881112.html

Naturally, Hutchinson knew this could not be the murderer as he had seen Mary after 2:00 am Friday morning, so after discussing his encounter with his friends at the lodging house, they convinced him to go to police.

[Sean Robbins]

I think it can be explained.
It would have helped of course if Hutch have given the reason he came forward as part of his initial statement to Badham.

I don't think the reason is any more mysterious than he simply saw, or learned from others, of a detail that came out of the inquest.

The Star evening paper came out early evening, quite often the Star reporter would leave an inquest prematurely to make the evening edition with his report.

I don't know, but I suspect Hutchinson learned about the description of the murderer from the Star.

THE MURDERER DESCRIBED.

This story was followed by a paragraph describing who the witness Mary Ann Cox saw entering the house with Mary Kelly at 11:45 pm, Thursday night.
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881112.html

Naturally, Hutchinson knew this could not be the murderer as he had seen Mary after 2:00 am Friday morning, so after discussing his encounter with his friends at the lodging house, they convinced him to go to police.

So what you're saying can be boiled down to, Hutchison's involvement in the case primarily led to doubt being cast on the viability of 'blotchy' as a suspect and also would have provided a witness who may cast 'reasonable doubt' on the guilt of 'blotchy' should he have been caught.

'blotchy' being a person who matched the description of the man seen at Mrs Fiddymont's pub, the 'broad-shouldered man' seen by Israel Schwarz and the man seen by Lawende with Kate Eddowes.

Yes, I agree.