Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lying Lies of George Hutchinson, the Liar Revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet another good point...a perception of what one group considers a display of opulence or wealth by another group's assumed standards...and of course, Hutchinson was not a member of the Astrachan Man's ethnic group. Good one Nemo ! Real good point pal...I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head...IMHO
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • Hi How
      It might just be a variance of degrees in either direction.
      I reckon you are right there.

      Hi Nemo

      I doubt you will find any kind of material to support the notion that Mr A was dressed like a Jew (typical or otherwise). Indeed the pale skin alone or the curled as opposed to droopy moustache was probably enough to remove him from the archetypal caricature of Jewness.

      Nor is there any reason to think that Jews of the time were "opulent". Nor is there any reason to think that Mr A was opulent either. He was described as respectable.

      If GH had tried to make him sound "opulent" then he would have called him something more than just "respectable".

      Unles syou want to beleive that it was all part of his inasnely complex double bluffing and psychological wizardry.

      p

      Comment


      • Damn !

        Those are good points too,Lars !
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

        Comment


        • Hi Mr P

          Point taken. I probably used the wrong wording there - but I think the point still stands that possibly the overall impression Astrakhan gave, whether described as opulant/respectable/shabby genteel, somehow fitted what Hutchinson would describe as a Jew(ish manner of dress)

          Comment


          • Hi Nemo

            whether described as opulant/respectable/shabby genteel, somehow fitted what Hutchinson would describe as a Jew(ish manner of dress)
            I genuinely am in doubt about that Nemo! If this holistic Jewness was there....then the word Jewish appears very late in the day on the statement.

            I mean....his walking sharply hops to GH's mind before his Jewness.

            Which again reinforces my view that the Jewness plasuaibly came from somewhere else.

            Im not being obstinate on this matter but thats how I see it. If Jewishness had meant anything to GH..it would have appeared in his statement as more than the after (or suggested) thought that is is.

            p

            Comment


            • Ripperoo

              There s a very interesting article from Ripperoo over on the Casebook.

              http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

              THE MAN WHO SHIELDED JACK THE RIPPER:
              George Hutchinson & his statement – An analysis.

              BY DEREK F. OSBORNE.

              Here's an excerpt, touching on many of the points we've been kicking around.

              "Hutchinson’s eye witness account, was of immediate importance to the police. Furthermore, his recall of events taking place in Commercial Street that night, included a most remarkable detailed description of Kelly’s client. Curiously however, he never furnished a physical description of Mary Kelly. And it appears astonishing that the police seemingly never asked for one, for the butchered remains found on her bed in Millers Court, resembled more a slaughterhouse carcass than a woman. But now as a result of this labourer’s statement, the police were concentrating their efforts in looking for a man of Jewish appearance. News of this filtered through the grapevine of the East End and the newspapers, which must have been greeted with relief by a certain stout man with a red moustache, who was the original suspect sought in connection with Mary Kelly’s murder. But, now thanks to Hutchinson’s testimony, he was no longer a hunted man.

              Yet the labourer’s statement, reveals some disturbing anomalies for Hutchinson. Despite all his certainty as to that nights events, which he so ably described, he was curiously unsure as to his own whereabouts on the night in question.

              Hutchinson stated that he met Mary Kelly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and that after a few words, she left him to walk down Commercial Street. A man coming in the opposite direction, stopped her and spoke to her. Hutchinson related: “...he then placed his hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap around it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head and watched him.” According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’. But astonishingly, there was no public house by any name at this location. Instead, as a contemporary map reveals, there was only the bleak rise of a tenement block, to be found there. As to the ‘Queen’s Head’: this public house, rather than being located at the corner intersection of Flower and Dean Street, was actually located at the corner intersection of Commercial Street and Fashion Street. And to have reached it, Hutchinson would have to have turned his back on the couple he said he was observing, to walk further up Commercial Street. A distance, according to an Ordnance Survey Map, of one hundred and twenty yards. Therefore, Hutchinson’s contention that he watched a man engage Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was outside the ‘Queen’s Head’ and that he was able to overhear their conversation, is totally discredited. How could he, by night’s dark cover plus at such a distance, have possibly observed such an innocuous detail as a strap around a small parcel?

              In addition to Hutchinson’s uncertainty regarding his position in Commercial Street, we find a most curious break in his narrative. We have worked out that to reach the ‘Queen’s Head’, he would have walked away from the couple he said he was watching. With every step he took, the distance between him and Thrawl Street increased. Yet this episode, this unavoidable walk, is missing or has been erased from his statement. Why? Clearly for a man who could remember or recall the colour of a man’s eyes and eyelashes by night, it is a perplexing omission.

              In light of these curious anomalies, I decided it would be worthwhile to examine Hutchinson’s original statement, (which is lodged at the Public Records Office). In doing so I came across a startling fact and one of paramount importance completely absent from the many books published on Jack the Ripper, which have included the statement of this labourer. For the long-held acceptance that Kelly and her client passed him at the ‘Queen’s Head’, is totally at odds with his original statement that he was standing outside another public house, one called the ‘Ten Bells’. And this particular public house we find, was sited at the corner of Church Street and Commercial Street, opposite Spitalfields Market. And this glaring discrepancy in Hutchinson’s testimony, we find was discovered only after his statement, labouriously taken down in longhand had been completed. However it was altered by a simple expediency: The wording of the ‘Ten Bells’ was struck through and substituted by that of the ‘Queen’s Head’.

              By such an act, the construction of Hutchinson’s account became more readily acceptable. Yet even this alteration cannot explain or dispel his flawed testimony. Consequently, we are forced to consider that George Hutchinson’s account was a fabrication. The edifice, indeed the very foundations of Hutchinson’s story, rested solely on his points of observation, his locations in Commercial Street. Remove anyone of these key-ins and the whole structure of events he claimed to have witnessed, collapses like a house of cards. And collapse it did, as the police must have discovered.

              But why then did the police, in view of this man’s obvious unreliability as a witness, decide to accept his story? To find a possible answer to this question, we must probe a particular social condition, prevailing at the time and understand the enormous pressure the police were under to apprehend the Whitechapel murderer.

              When Hutchinson directly identified the suspect in Mary Kelly’s murder as a Jew, he struck a deep well lying beneath the fabric of the East End community. One containing the dark waters of anti-Semitism. And it was one that may have heavily influenced acceptance of his flawed testimony.

              Support for such speculation, is not hard to find in the newspaper accounts of the times. In any event, Hutchinson’s contention that Mary Kelly’s last companion was a Jewish man, focuses out the manner in which he brought this fact to the attention of the police:

              “ I stood against the lamp of the ‘Queen’s Head’ Public House and watched him. They both came past me and the man hung down his head, with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face…”. By this act, Hutchinson directly identified the murder suspect. By any standard, (if accepted as true), it was a rude and aggressive act. Not only toward Kelly’s client, but also to Mary herself. What business was it of Hutchinson’s, if Kelly picked up a man? After all, picking up men was the keystone of her trade. "

              Comment


              • How could he, by night’s dark cover plus at such a distance, have possibly observed such an innocuous detail as a strap around a small parcel?--from the article found in the late Jules Rosenthal's Ripperoo

                Thats a whole 'nother kettle of fish...which I refer back to Pilgrim's thread for ( Kodak)...and maybe you could start a thread up for on these innocuous details,eh Bob? Thanks in advance.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                  Thats a whole 'nother kettle of fish...which I refer back to Pilgrim's thread for ( Kodak)...and maybe you could start a thread up for on these innocuous details,eh Bob? Thanks in advance.
                  Well, if you can live with it here, I think it does fit with the "Lying Lies" angle of the thread, which was to suss out what parts of GH's story were fictionalized.

                  Seeing these details at that time of night is preposterous.

                  Saying that he occasionally gave Kelly money strains the credulity. (Unless he was a customer, which starts to explain things.)

                  A toff at that time of night, in that neighborhood, and in the rain reeks to high heavens.

                  Stating that he just ran into Kelly when it is clear from the map at the start of this thread that he made a beeline towards Miller Court staggers the imagination.

                  Waiting until a pardon is declared for Jack's 'accomplices' make one scratch one's head.

                  And so on and so forth.

                  Again, I don't believe Hutch was the Ripper - but he did tell some lying lies.

                  Comment


                  • All the details you just mentioned further tend to make me believe that the police had little need to coerce Hutchinson's story...especially the part about the pardon. Thank you for bringing them up,my man.

                    Could that be the primary or sole reason for the subsequent visit to the police by this man?
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                    Comment


                    • HI chaps

                      IM afraid Im going to have to point out some problems with the document from Casebook which is known to me. And for simplicity, I'll take the piece Sir Bob posted:

                      Furthermore, his recall of events taking place in Commercial Street that night, included a most remarkable detailed description of Kelly’s client.
                      NO it didnt. No one knows if that was his recall or what he thought he reccalled, or what the police hinted to him that he recalled, or what he recalled from a different night, or what he imagined, or what he thought he should have recalled, or what he recalled and then embellished out of fear and so on.

                      Curiously however, he never furnished a physical description of Mary Kelly.
                      And it appears astonishing that the police seemingly never asked for one, for the butchered remains found on her bed in Millers Court, resembled more a slaughterhouse carcass than a woman.
                      NO. What is astonishing is that theyw oudlnt bring him down to the morgue to get him to identify her AND get a good look at his reactions as well. Which is what I heard they did? Although I could be mistaken.

                      But now as a result of this labourer’s statement, the police were concentrating their efforts in looking for a man of Jewish appearance.
                      Nope. But there is reason to think they were looking for one before GH showed up. And seeing as he described a man who hardly could be called Jewish, given his distinctly British moustaches, pale skin and lack of Jewish regalia......one wonders how GH could be reposnible for them looking for this Jewish man?
                      News of this filtered through the grapevine of the East End and the newspapers, which must have been greeted with relief by a certain stout man with a red moustache, who was the original suspect sought in connection with Mary Kelly’s murder.
                      Nope. He wasn't. Its plain in the inquest reports that BEFORE GH showed up they were more interested in the fancy chap who had accosted Lewis than Blotchy. Odd isnt it?
                      But, now thanks to Hutchinson’s testimony, he was no longer a hunted man.
                      Palpable nonsense. No evidence Blotchy was ever looked for or a suspect (even though he should have been).

                      Yet the labourer’s statement, reveals some disturbing anomalies for Hutchinson.
                      It does? Pray tell what they are.....

                      Despite all his certainty as to that nights events, which he so ably described, he was curiously unsure as to his own whereabouts on the night in question.
                      NOpe. He wasnt forthcoming in his statement. But if you think that Abberline didnt sort that out.....well, you'd have to quite gullible.

                      Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’. But astonishingly, there was no public house by any name at this location. Instead, as a contemporary map reveals, there was only the bleak rise of a tenement block, to be found there. As to the ‘Queen’s Head’: this public house, rather than being located at the corner intersection of Flower and Dean Street, was actually located at the corner intersection of Commercial Street and Fashion Street.
                      Isnt there evidence in teh statement that Abberline sorted thatmatter out between the ten bells and Queens Head? Just as one would expect him to do.

                      How could he, by night’s dark cover plus at such a distance, have possibly observed such an innocuous detail as a strap around a small parcel?
                      GH never says he saw the parcle from a distance or whern exactly. He may well have seen iit when he approached the pair and got a dirty look. Its hardly implausible.

                      With every step he took, the distance between him and Thrawl Street increased. Yet this episode, this unavoidable walk, is missing or has been erased from his statement. Why?
                      Abberline and Badham probably didnt think it necessary to include it in the textual document?

                      In light of these curious anomalies, I decided it would be worthwhile to examine Hutchinson’s original statement, (which is lodged at the Public Records Office). In doing so I came across a startling fact and one of paramount importance completely absent from the many books published on Jack the Ripper, which have included the statement of this labourer.
                      Its a shame you missed all the other "startling facts".

                      For the long-held acceptance that Kelly and her client passed him at the ‘Queen’s Head’, is totally at odds with his original statement that he was standing outside another public house, one called the ‘Ten Bells’. And this particular public house we find, was sited at the corner of Church Street and Commercial Street, opposite Spitalfields Market. And this glaring discrepancy in Hutchinson’s testimony, we find was discovered only after his statement, labouriously taken down in longhand had been completed. However it was altered by a simple expediency: The wording of the ‘Ten Bells’ was struck through and substituted by that of the ‘Queen’s Head’.
                      BY Abberline. Presumably after questioning. Or else they just did it to make the statement suit them. In which case every other possible "anomaly" in it may arise from the police in which case GH is still off the hook.
                      Consequently, we are forced to consider that George Hutchinson’s account was a fabrication.
                      No we are not. We are forced to consider it was a mistake, a confabulation, a function or poor memory etc etc etc.

                      And collapse it did, as the police must have discovered.
                      Discovering it is irrelevant. What is relevant is even if tehy did discover it, they still didnt pin anything on GH despite being OBLIGATED to suspect the last man to see Kelly and who now apparently has a clanger of a story. But taa daa! GH never runs,. is never arrested, never kills again either and our reformed "serial killer" seem to have spent the rest of his days not in hiding but living happily, not suspected by police, public, press or politician ever again despite being the last man to see Kelly, having waited outside her house and then been caught with this "Collapsed house of cards"?

                      Not a chance in hell.

                      But why then did the police, in view of this man’s obvious unreliability as a witness, decide to accept his story? To find a possible answer to this question, we must probe a particular social condition, prevailing at the time and understand the enormous pressure the police were under to apprehend the Whitechapel murderer.

                      When Hutchinson directly identified the suspect in Mary Kelly’s murder as a Jew, he struck a deep well lying beneath the fabric of the East End community. One containing the dark waters of anti-Semitism. And it was one that may have heavily influenced acceptance of his flawed testimony.
                      Nope he didnt. because he never identified him as a Jew. And even if he did, its more probable that he meant Eastern European. Given thathis description is not remotely like a Jew at all.

                      Support for such speculation, is not hard to find in the newspaper accounts of the times. In any event, Hutchinson’s contention that Mary Kelly’s last companion was a Jewish man, focuses out the manner in which he brought this fact to the attention of the police:
                      This is getting outrageous! At least its a good example of the guff GH-as-guilty folks peddle! GH never identified anyone as Jewish. He certainly didnt contend it. And he actually described a very non-Jewish character.

                      “ I stood against the lamp of the ‘Queen’s Head’ Public House and watched him. They both came past me and the man hung down his head, with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face…”. By this act, Hutchinson directly identified the murder suspect.
                      Whaaat?
                      By any standard, (if accepted as true), it was a rude and aggressive act. Not only toward Kelly’s client, but also to Mary herself.
                      SO what? It was the east end. She was a hard drinking whore, he was probably half criminal. What has politeness to such a whore or her client got to do with anything?

                      What business was it of Hutchinson’s, if Kelly picked up a man? After all, picking up men was the keystone of her trade. "
                      Ive got to stop....its getting too bizarre. And too easy.

                      At any rate, tales of GH as guilty are as easy to pick holes in as....something thats easy to pick holes in.

                      HI Sir Bob

                      Pardom me if this is going to seem a bit harsh...but here we go....

                      Seeing these details at that time of night is preposterous
                      .

                      NO its not. Every one of them is either a contrast in black or white or silhouette. All of which one could expect to make out at night.

                      Th ered hanky? One can tell if a hanky is white at night. Or not. NOw no hanky is black so if it aint white, what other colour do you think it would be? Red seems reasonable. GH could see it wasnt white, there are no black ones, so he puts two and two together and takes a stab at red. What is so astounding about that?

                      Saying that he occasionally gave Kelly money strains the credulity. (Unless he was a customer, which starts to explain things.)
                      I think everyone accepts he was a bit of a punter,

                      A toff at that time of night, in that neighborhood, and in the rain reeks to high heavens.
                      Awww....don't start me off on the toff bit.....

                      Stating that he just ran into Kelly when it is clear from the map at the start of this thread that he made a beeline towards Miller Court staggers the imagination.
                      This is bizarre. Was Miller Court the only place in London? How does anyone know he made a beeline for Millers Court specifically as opposed to going anywhere at all and Dorset St was just en route?

                      Waiting until a pardon is declared for Jack's 'accomplices' make one scratch one's head.
                      ????? HOw do you know he did? As opposed to only hearing it was Kelly after the short, early inquest? Seeing as the story was not confirmed until the inquest. Why would he show up at an inquest if he didnt know it was Kelly who was killed? Indeed why would he show up at all, even if he knew it was her, when there were letters going around warning witnesses that the Ripperknew their addresses? Or perhaps it was the mention of reward that drew him out?

                      Again, I don't believe Hutch was the Ripper - but he did tell some lying lies.
                      You'll have to prove that SirBob! NOt telling the truth is not the same as lying.

                      And now.....I am off on holiday for a week! Ciao!

                      p

                      Comment


                      • "Was Miller Court the only place in London? How does anyone know he made a beeline for Millers Court specifically as opposed to going anywhere at all and Dorset St was just en route?

                        Let's go back to the Map I posted at the very beginning of the thread and we'll take another gander.

                        It's post number one and it's copied from "On the Trail of a Dead Man".

                        Give it a go and then we'll chat about what this map says to me.

                        Comment


                        • Hi ho

                          Im no London expert, but surely it looks like he was heading for Victoria home?

                          And if he wasnt, once he turned onto Commercial Road/Street, he could have been going anywhere?

                          Millers Court is there, sure.....but a lot of London lies in that direction as well.

                          So I still do not understand this "beeline" for Millers Court.

                          p

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X