Brilliant as always Mr. Jones. This will be a long reply, since Hutchinson is a viable candidate for Mary Kelly’s murder. I would argue that another red flag is that Hutchinson, according to his own statement, had walked 17 miles (27,4 km) during the evening and well into the night and must have been quite tired. Yet he claimed to have stood for 45 minutes at Miller’s Court, and in spite of being exhausted could provide an extremely detailed, and quite unbelievable, description of the alleged killer. I’ve said it before; the police today would most certainly regard Hutchinson a strong person of interest in the Mary Kelly murder. Not only because of the aforementioned discrepancies, but also because he didn’t come forward until tree days after the murder. Not to mention that he was at the scene of the crime and admitted to know Kelly well. A well known telltale sign that someone is lying is too much details, which is exactly what we have in this case. It frankly surprise me that chief Inspector Abberline was so willing to believe Hutchinson. But perhaps Abberline knew something we haven’t taken into consideration. However, had I been chief inspector Abberline I would have put Hutchinsons self proclaimed Sherlock Holmes’s memory to the test, which would have been quite an easy experiment to execute. I can only wonder if Abberline ever did. I’d would also like to point out that another red flag is when people try to insert themselves into police investigations, particularly regarding murders and specifically when dealing with serial killers. Disclaimer: in the following text I’m just thinking out loud, which means conjecture and speculation, but there might be one or two deductions that could be of interest. I’d like to point out that we only have Hutchinson word that he arrived to Whitechapel just before two o’clock when he claimed to have met Kelly and the alleged man. In reality he may have arrived earlier, or later for that matter. Sara Lewis presumably saw Hutchinson at 2.30, but that only confirms that he, if that indeed was him, was there at that particular time. Not that he already had been there for more than half an hour, and not that he didn’t stay longer than he claimed to the police. Hutchinson claimed that he met Kelly before or around 2 o’clock, yet when Lewis passed the man who presumably was Hutchinson shortly after 2.30, she observed a man in the company of an obviously drunk woman further up the courtyard. That couldn’t have been Mary Ann Cox, a prostitute who also lived in Miller’s Court, since she left at 1 p.m. and didn’t return until approximately 3 a.m. But what if the man standing at the entrance of Miller’s Court wasn’t Hutchinson but that the real Hutchinson in fact was the man accompanying the woman, i.e. Mary Kelly, further in? The man standing at the entrance could have had a completely different agenda that had nothing to do with neither Kelly nor Hutchinson, but for reasons unknown he may have been reluctant to talk to the police. The reason for this speculation is that Hutchinson never mentioned this couple, that couldn’t have been Kelly and the alleged man according to Hutchinson’s own timeline of events. That is odd to say the least But regardless if Hutchinson was the man at the entrance or the man further in, the fact that Sara Lewis saw him may very well have been the reason why Hutchinson decided to come forward. He probably didn’t know how much Mrs. Lewis had seen, or if she could identify him. However, if Hutchinson was guilty of the murder of Mary Kelly, Mrs. Lewis testimony must have sparked a good portion of paranoia in him that likely grew by the minute. He had to manufacture an explanation for his presence at the murder scene, which he likely rehearsed many times, hence the absurdly meticulous description of the alleged man. Moreover, there was also a young couple who may have seen Hutchinson at the same time, who for unknown reasons didn’t come forward. That may have increased Hutchinson paranoia even further. We’re also unaware if someone saw him bloodstained after the murder and put two and two together as the gruesome details of the murder were revealed, for which Hutchinson quickly had to come up with an excuse in form of an manufactured alibi. Another interesting thing is that according to previously mentioned Mary Ann Cox, Kelly was seen with a ginger-haired man, aged approximately 36, at 11:45 p.m. This man was wearing a black felt bowler hat, had a thick mustache and blotches on his face. After entering 13 Miller's Court Kelly began singing, seemingly uninterrupted, until 1.30-ish. Kelly was still singing when Cox left again shortly after 1 a.m. but it was reportedly silent Elizabeth Prater went to bed at 1.30. The ginger-haired man was never seen exiting Kelly’s room. That is only 20 minutes before Hutchinson claimed to have entered the scene. A quick side note: I know that it’s stereotyping, and perhaps even prejudice, but Mary Kelly was from Ireland where ginger hair is quite common. What if the history Kelly was running from finally caught up with her in the form of the ginger-haired man? As previously mentioned much of this is of course speculations, but I dare to say that Hutchinson remains a viable person of interest in the murder of Mary Kelly, at least in my book. The murder in itself is much more personal than any of the previous murders, and Hutchinson himself claimed he was well acquainted with Kelly. The fact that the murder was committed indoors and that Kelly was much younger than the other victims may suggest that the murder was planned and she was selected as target beforehand, unlike the previous murders that seems to be unorganized and opportunistic in nature. Considering the extensive time the killer spent mutilating the corpse he must have known he wouldn’t be disturbed in his work. Otherwise he would be trapped in a small room with only one way out. That takes planning, preparation and very likely stalking to gather information. Something a man with no steady job would have time to do. A man who lived in the area that forensic geo-positioning profiling regard as the likely lair of JTR. I’m not saying that Hutchinson was the culprit in the other murders, fact is I don’t believe he was, but there are undeniably circumstantial evidence pointing to that he may have been the butcher of number 13 Miller's Court. Finally, a mystery within the mystery. Both Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis reported hearing a single loud cry of “Murder!” between 3.30 am and 4 a.m. But is it really reasonable to assume that was Mary Kelly’s voice? Is screaming “Murder!” the first word that would pop into one’s mind when being attacked? Wouldn’t high pitched inarticulate screams come much more natural, and possibly “Help!”? Could the cry “Murder!” have slipped from an unknown female witness who either witnessed some of the mutilation or discovered the body afterwords, hours before Thomas Bowyer saw the gruesome scene through the broken window at 10.45? Then who? And what happened to her? Could it have been Mary Ann Cox who arrived later than she stated at the inquest? Could it have been Maria Harvey, Lizzie Albrook, Elizabeth Foster or some other friend of Mary Kelly who planned to exploit Kelly’s hospitality? Perhaps the mysterious woman actually saw the killer and was too shocked and terrified to talk to the police, risking having her name printed in the tabloids? Perhaps she was threatened to silence or simply didn’t want to get involved due to reasons beyond our knowledge. I’m going to stop rambling now. If you got this far I humbly thank you for reading.
Yeah but you don't give G HUTCHINSON any motive yet say it needed planning Kelly's q needed it and so G H he planned to have particular murdered in that particular way - Why her the other women were picked and their has to be some planing or Alot of Luck and maybe less planing -I'm saying if Hutchinson did murder Kelly he certainly seems to have enjoyed himself because he Couldn't always select a murder victim .
@@jamescorlett5272 There could be a number of reasons for a motive, but since that entirely would be based upon speculations I left it out it in the OP. But he may have been obsessed with Kelly and when he was rejected and ridiculed he turned to violent murder and desecration for instance (she was known to be mean when she drank). He may have blamed her for ruining his life if she contaminated him with syphilis which he in turn transferred to his wife causing her a miscarriage.
Hello, Great points!! I too believe that Hutchinson should be examined a lot more than what some give credit for. My issues with Hutchinson are in breaking down his story. 1) He could have easily lied about getting back from Romford, and I believe that he did. As you stated, Mary Ann Cox sees a man with Kelly with blocthy face, and ginger hair, and STOUT. This description is also given by witnesses in the case of Elizabeth stride. Later, Lewis gives the description and also uses the word STOUT in her description, that we of course know was the man identifying himself as Hutchinson. 2) Kelly asked for 6P. Why 6P? Why would Kelly ask specifically for 6P? Why not 4P, 10P, 8P, or more logically “Any spare money that you could lend” but he says she specifically ask for 6P. Why? So here is Hutchinson, no place to sleep and now mentioning 6P. I think Kelly was going to charge him 6P for lodging. 3) Big thick gold watch chain. So we ignore the fact that this guy (Astrak man) is walking around the worse area of Whitechapel at 2:00AM and that he is Jewish in a time and place where there was a lot of antisemitism and just taking a stroll, but he also has his coat opened in the very cold and rainy weather. According to Hutchinson he follows them, close enough where he can hear what they are saying, and at no time did Kelly ever say “George!! What are doing?” Or “leave us alone” or anything to him. Didn’t even acknowledge him. And likewise he never says to Kelly “this guy doesn’t look right” etc. 4) Hung around until 3:00 AM. Same time Dr Bond puts Kelly’s time of death. 5) Hutchinson says that before he left that no sound was coming from Kelly’s room and no light. How did he know this unless he got close enough to her window (the one with the hole in it) to see or hear? But now he has an excuse if anybody puts him next to Kelly’s room as Lewis already put him at the scene. You already addressed the other points in your comment. It is also noteworthy that had this George Hutchinson have been an alias then perhaps look at George Wylie Hutchinson for inspiration with regards to the dates of when the murders started and ended with his work on Cloomber. My opinion is that Hutchinson, or the man who identified himself as George Hutchinson was with Kelly prior to the murder and drinking with her. An agreement for lodging (or perhaps as a customer) was made for 6P. Kelly took another client that evening and told Hutchinson to wait outside until she was done. Hutchinson waits for man to leave and then comes back into the room and kills Kelly. Remember, Kelly seemingly did not engage in any sexual activity with Blotchy/Hutchinson rather she sang to him and shared a meal of fish and potatoes.
@@jamescorlett5272I don’t think that Hutchinson’s original plan was to kill Kelly. I think that in his own sick way, he loved Kelly. Just as Dahmer loved his last victim that he killed.
It's interesting that George Hutchinson might have been Frederick Bailey Deeming, trying to throw the police off his trail and having a bit of fun with them.
Fascinating as always, Richard! Over-elaborate detail is customarily regarded as a bit of a red flag for identifying liars - my gut feeling says he was looking for a combination of attention and payout.
@@Legionmint7091 Even now one can encounter all kinds of class and attire on an East End street late at night. Your assumptions only serve to eliminate a whole swathe of viable suspects!
Time to think more laterally. Most of all the witness descriptions don't fit into Whitechapel. The pros clients were from the bottom strata of society. Yet the bulk of the witness statements contradict this. They are well dressed men or clerk like appearance. For example, Stride was seen talking to a man in a affluent leather coat. He should have been a walking ATM for her. But the witness herd Stride say " not tonight pal " She knew he didn't belong there. One witness identikit showed an exact drawing of suspect Micheal Maybrick ( who is envolved in these murders ). Hutchinson's man is part of a long string of men who are clearly not of the bottom strata. The epitome is Martha Tabram ( who clearly is a victim ). Several witnesses saw her with only 2 men all night. Both of them were Gaurdsmen. What the hell were men of such high status doing in Whitechapel at 1.00am? Guardsman are the monarchy security force. Michael Maybrick knew Prince Albert It makes me believe strongly that the state ( or monarchy) is envolved. There is just too much smoke in this direction.
I’d love to see you get Steve blomer on again the interviews with you and him are very good. And I learned a lot about kosminski and things from watching your videos with him. Great video
Great video! He’s definitely someone that would be worth investigating as he was around the crime scene possibly around the time of the murder. That said, I am at the opinion he was embellishing the details to get the monetary payoff by the police. I would find it hard to believe that if he was Jack the Ripper that he would openly talk about what he saw to the police and especially to his fellow resident that encouraged him to take his story to the police. Interesting witnesses/suspect.
Maybe this is another occasion where we need to send another conversation on the channel with Steve Blomer - his expertise on the case is needed to get the more rational answer to your question.
Hutchinson was skint. He intended to rob Mr. Rich when he left Mary Kelly’s. It would have been an interesting tussle. Would Hutchinson have succeeded? Not if the Ripper got to pull out his knife instead of his wallet!
Another wonderful video. And just another character in the JTR story. I don't believe Hutchinson is the aforementioned, but I do think his statements are questionable. Too detailed in my opinion. Though we'll never know exactly.
He is the only person who, by modern standards, would be a suspect. His allegation that he had leant her so much money despite her being little more than an acquaintance, his extremely elaborate description and story about overhearing part of their conversation, the fact that despite living so close by, knowing her, and seeing her with someone he apparently considered so sketchy he felt the need to duck his head down and look at/take mental notes about…but took him three days to go to police, and only because his name had been printed in the paper…all suspect as HELL. Even though what’s known about him is pretty limited, what is known checks off too many boxes for him to not be just as high up on the list as Lechmere. If not higher. The only thing that really makes Lech a good suspect is placement at the finding of one of the bodies, but that’s about it. Versus Hutchinson who was seen by someone else lurking outside the final canonical victims rented room, lived in the projected area he likely lived in, etc.
He knew Mary Kelly well as a paying customer. Something he was never going to admit to the police or newspapers. Everybody knew exactly what he meant when he said, “Mary Kelly asked him for six pence” The person who carved up Mary Kelly was an experienced butcher or battlefield surgeon!
Hutchinsons name never appeared in any paper before he came forward - perhaps G H was Kelly's murderer perhaps even the ripper - Hutchinson was very cocky in coming forward whatever else he might have been we might just find out someday .
Thank you so much for the videos. Hutchinson is as good a suspect as any in my opinion although the 1 a.m curfew means that he would have to wonder the streets after the murders. That's too risky isn't it. We know there was a woman with Mary when Barnett visited her and that she left. I think that same woman or another came back. There was a woman with Mary and she didn't leave until the next morning.
George Hutchinson told tge police he used to be a groom but was now looking for work as a labourer. My research has found a George Hutchinson, groom, Middleton, Durham in the 1881 census. In the 1891 census, he was back in Durham working on the railways.
Excellent video Richard,like everything else with this case questions lead to more questions and seldom satisfactory answers,as for Hutchinson?his description of the man only stops short of detailing his underwear! difficult to believe by any stretch of the imagination,anyway excellent channel Richard
As you mention Richard, If we agree that Jack the Ripper was responsible for the 5 canonical murders in Whitechapel in 1888, and there being tenuous evidence that George Hutchinson was involved in the last of them (with absolutely no evidence that he was connected with the other 4) then George Hutchinson simply cant be Jack the Ripper. Why would a crazed serial killer make himself known to the police? That doesnt make sense. I believe that George Hutchinson is one of the best witnesses in the whole case simply because he was able to give such a detailed description of the man that Mary Kelly was with. All descriptions of JTR up to this point had only described the type of hat he was wearing, that he had a black mustache, long black coat and mixed opinions as to his age and height (as well as the tied package he was seen to carry). The type of description proffered by Mr Hutchinson is just the one we would hope to have. And that Abberline so believed his story is enough for me to believe that Hutchinson was being truthful in his testimonies. Some people are simply better than others at recalling detail, particularly, in this case, where Hutchinson had reason to be observing this man anyway. In order to discover the identity of JTR you have to find evidence that links the murders together. Hutchinson had no motive and there's very little here to suggest he was responsible for MJKs murder let alone any of the others
lots of serial killers inject themselves into the case and George Hutchinson is no different! he was stalking Mary Kelly that night and got spooked by Sara Lewis enough to make up a story. he also wanted to know what the police knew.
That was - yeah - an almighty headache - well done!! If you look at Google Maps and where at 39-41 Commercial Street, there is an alleyway behind. Did he bunk in and out of the doss house?
I’ve always believed Hutchinson, with his stalkish behaviour, killed Kelly, but that this murder was a stand-alone, and has been mixed in with the other canonical four.
Hutchinson didn't really give a good reason why he followed Kelly and the man, or what he was waiting for outside Miller's Court, or why he stopped waiting. His best reason would have been that he thought the man might attack Kelly, yet he specifically said he didn't think that. (He also said he could swear to the man anywhere, but wasn't sure if a man he saw on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday morning was he.) Another possibility is surely that he did indeed wait for the man to emerge, possibly quickly established that he'd killed Kelly, caught up with the man, followed him, and ultimately killed him.
When you look ar it there are red flags but think he was a witness that wanted his little bit of fame and cash. The description far to detailed bushie eye browes when said hat pulled down . Walked softly etc sound like try to describe JTR to me That said if he was JTR you could argue the same profile as Lechmere at seen and clever misinformation . Love your content 👍
I surpose it's understandable the law would not expect the dread " ripper "to walk in the station - but i can't believe Hutchinson thought he was likely to be recognised by the woman Sarah Lewis who said she saw " somebody " - so imo G H deliberately waited for the Inquest to end as he was never there but saw a opportunity to make money from Kelly's death through newspaper interviews and possibly intentionally taking the police on a wild goose chase for himself - his story of the man who spoke with Kelly is so Ludicrously detailed that it beggars believe that Abberline and the cops seemed to believe him - he says he waited outside her place for around 45 minutes yet if as he seems to be saying and waited that long he would have surely looked through the broken window but says he didn't or doesn't say he did - if Mary's death was by the " ripper " then imo Hutchinson very likely was her butcher i think he was possible stalking her - the " ripper " got a kick outta the risks he took and perhaps speaking to his nemesis was just to good a offer to turn down - who knows but it really does fit in with my view of jack perhaps even hinting of the chalked message.
Hutchinson is a better suspect than most of the famous people put forward by arm chair detectives. He fits the psychological profile & he can be placed near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder shortly before or after her t.o.d.....
Great job Mr Jones, thanks for all you do for us ripperologists. With all due respect to people who believe Charles Lechmere/Cross was the ripper, George Hutchinson imo is a more plausible suspect. Many other men walked that same route as Cross/Lechmere on their way to work and that early in the am. As far as i know Lechmere had no other issues with police other than he accidentally killed a boy with his carriage a decade earlier, that doesn't fit the psychological profile of a killer of this caliber. The ripper MUST have had a mental illness and Lechmere had not. Even though i believe A. Kosminski was the ripper i consider Hutchinson a better suspect than any other because of: his knowledge of the area, his exaggerated detailed description of the suspect,his lateness to come forward and was put in the crime area like: "waiting for someone to come out" by Kelly's lodgings. He probably made up the description cuz he knew the press will track him and offer him money to do interviews, like it happened with Israel Schwartz. NOTE TO MR JONES: We'd appreciate if you can do research on a few of the first books written on the ripper, i e. The man who allegedly interviewed Fred Best was researching the case with people who lived through the murders. My point is that in some of those old/first books on the subject there may be some truth since they interviewed and had access (probably) to original documents. Thanks again Mr Jones.
Hutchinson is a viable suspect, one of the better ones I think, but like every Ripper suspect, it's more likely that he wasn't the Riper than that he was. It's more likely that either he was seeking attention an/or money, or that his memory added details to the description that weren't really there, maybe without him even intending to do that.
Although I don't think he was the Ripper he was seen very near the scene of the murder. This of course negates Lechmere's status as the only person seen at the scene of a JTR murder who was positively identified.
As far as history knows, George was a weirdo hanging around Millers Ct the night/ early morning of the day of the murder. That’s it. I think he was telling a story to get a piece of that Ripper reward money.
Odd, Hutchison never mentioned seeing Sarah Lewis. However, she saw him, stopping on Dorset Street, looking up Miller’s Court as she entered, about 2.30am. The couple seen by Sarah Lewis near the Britannia pub could not have been Mary Kelly and her killer if Hutchinson was by that time already outside Miller’s Court, having followed Mary and her client there!?
As I understand it, a groom would have been a cut or two above a laborer in those days, so Hutchinson would have been at a bit of a personal rock bottom around this time. If his testimony was in any respect false, then I suspect that his motives were monetary.
Hutchinson is very dodgy, hanging about Kelly's lodgings, sort of stalking I reckon and gives a description of a man he said he saw which is over dramatic, and blaming the Jews, which was the common view taken. something just is not right with Hutchinson. Good stuff.
I suspect Aberline knew the caliber of the man he interviewed, just as he did with Lechmere/Cross. JTR was a killer not a perv like Hutchinson. Have a read of Philip Sugden's book to see what he thought about Hutchinson.
We won't find out who Jack was in this world and by the time we get to the next one we probably won't care anymore. But it is a fascinating subject. Are there no photographs of Inspector Abberline?🇺🇸
But WHO else saw the Man with coat, bag, hat- apparently only George..if he did exist ? Or was he a man that George had seen on a previous occassion when he described him. Yes, being the last person to see Mry , he invented the Story to divert suspicion away from himself.
He just wanted to make a little money out of it, in much the same way that local residents charged people for a look into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Given thr dreadful living standards of the area, who van blame them.
I don't think Hutchinson was the killer. I believe he recognized the man with Kelly and was recognized in return. Perhaps his discription was to put the killer at ease and to not attempt to find him. He may not have intended to come forward except Sarah Lewis forced his hand. I think he saw possibly Jacob Levy who was a butcher in Petticoat Lane.
Holmgren is the ultimate attention seeker - he used to believe Hutchinson to be the ripper so No Problems with Hutchinson walking away from the Nicholls murder . way back when of course with Mr Holmgren I think he's forgotten all about George now he's got Charlie .
His story is likely true. He describes a smartly dressed man just like many other witnesses described as well as carrying some sort of package, which again multiple witnesses also described including a police officer.
Unlikely Hutchinson purely as he gave a detailed description- some pple are observant furthermore, in a poverty stricken area with suspicions running high owing to circumstance and the ripper and her being a prostitute with a man apparently not from the area … who would not take a close look and observe???? They were not like nowadays when the young twits get their phones out and video the scene rather than assist or report.
N̈o,it was the " GREAT AMERICAN DOCTOR ". Together with his most capable and trusted butcher and hair dresser.Futher they adorned acectly the same moustache, 😮O.M.G...
i think he was a very odd person, the way he acted by not coming forward untill a few days after can look bad for him as he was hiding something but who knows its the same with all the suspects they can all look gulity until you look in to them, i don;t think we will every know now who he was which is a shame but if we did would we still be talking about it today
as we go over this stuff over andover it doesnot take us eney where there is so much missing for us to make a reasonable adsumption of eney aspect of this case no one makes a mouve either forward or back,the latest suspect of eney worth was lechmere but he was not a std sufferer which was intemated inDearBoss could Lwright with that flowing handwrightingstyle we have not seen a sample of hishandwrighting another piece of evedence thats missing ttfn&ty
@@andrewtomlinson5237 says the guys who’s paid little attention to the nuances of the entire murderer spree. Not just the 5. For almost 30 years women in London were murdered in the Ripper fashion. Hutch was only about 30 in ‘88. It’s amazing the mental gymnastics people will indulge in to make a case for any man in Whitechapel to be the killer. And will reject common sense. Lechmere lied about his name, even though he had no reason to if he was innocent. He pulled down Mary’s dress before Paul arrived. And this is a fact: he spent an unknown amount of time, ALONE with the freshly murdered body of Mary.
@@davesmith7432common sense is not evidence. There's zero evidence for Lechmere as it stands now. Many many people lied or are now construed as lying for a great number of things such as names and especially surnames. If we brought this up as evidence we would be laughed out of court. Rightly so.
he's at least highly suspicious imo. the amount of detail he "recalled" from under a gas lamp in the early hours is ludicrous. he makes my top 3 at number 2 as he can be placed at the scene of one of the murders - 1 being Charles Cross, for the same reason but more so due to time constraints. my 3rd is James Maybrick because his diary is yet to be definitively proven fake, and some details were not public knowledge prior to the 1970s.
Well i guess you been waiting for me. good video on this killer that has fooled so many people. i was reading the comments and there are still some that don't see it. You are right we do not know a lot about Hutchinson or if that is his real name, but I know he is the ripper. Like they said almost everything he said was in the paper and he was watching and listening to everybody, and you can see that in his made-up story. Some people think why would a killer come forward if he thinks he is in the clear? well, some killers like to inject themselves into the case, George had two reasons one is he got spooked the second is he wanted to know what cops knew. People just don't seem to understand that the cops back then did not know what a serial killer was or how to catch one so as soon as they hear the cops believed his story they think ok he is not the killer let me remind you that cops did not think Ted Bundy was a killer because he was a law student the York Shire ripper was talked to nine times before he was caught, the Green river killer passed a lie detector test and had killed two girls the day before! the sad thing is the Authors have turned this case into a money-making joke and all the people out there who just like the authors do not know anything about how to catch a serial killer believe these authors on who the killer is .Authors write books people they do NOT catch killers!!what we believe happened on the night of Nov.9th is George Hutchinson was out hunting he did not go to Romford as he says in his story but because of all the cops out looking for him he had to stay close to home. Mary was in the wrong place at the wrong time you see George targeted older drunk women but Mary had the nerve to ask for money when George was hunting this angered him and with time running out targeted her so he followed her back to her flat waited until all was clear and went to her room telling her he has money so she lets him in and the murder happens. In his made-up statement we can see he has been listening to what's being said he wrote the message on the wall because people were saying it must be a Jew that did this. Then he gives a discerption of the man he says he sees with Mary because they were saying the killer was a Fournier now there is something else he says that most people miss and that is the color of the handkerchief, he says it red! now he did not pick that color for no reason he picked it because when he killed Kate Eddowes he was dressed like a sailor and had on a red Handkerchief, and he knows he had been seen by the three men coming out of the club and they said he had one on. he made a mistake when he added the gold watch and red stone because he forgot just how bad it was on that street, he was just trying to make people think he saw a dumb Fournier and guess what? it worked! Believe it or not we owe sara Lewis cause had she not seen him we would never know of him. Another red flag was George Knew Mary Kelly why is that a red flag, because a lust serial killer will always try and kill a victim, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always destroy the face and sometimes the body of the victim, we also believe he knew Kate Eddowes and that is why he cut up her face. no other victims had this kind of damage done to them. I see some comments saying he is not linked to any other murders so he can't be the killer. Well, that's wrong there have been lots of killers that have killed victims they have not been linked to and some killers even confessed murders that cops did not even know about that were their kills. We found Jack and we did it for the victims and the families and to stop the authors and other rats from making money off these victims they have been hurt enough. the easy part is done finding the killer and now We are looking for the hard evidence to show the court and the world We will never put out any books or movies and will never take a penny for doing this we did this because it's the right thing to do. Do all of you out there want to listen to somebody like us who has studied serial murder for years or Authors who have been making money off the victims and their families not caring if the killers found or not? Remember people authors write books they do NOT catch killers! that has fooled so many people. i was reading the comments and there are still some that don't see it. You are right we do not know a lot about Hutchinson or if that is his real name, but I know he is the ripper. Like they said almost everything he said was in the paper and he was watching and listening to everybody, and you can see that in his made-up story. Some people think why would a killer come forward if he thinks he is in the clear? well, some killers like to inject themselves into the case, George had two reasons one is he got spooked the second is he wanted to know what cops knew. People just don't seem to understand that the cops back then did not know what a serial killer was or how to catch one so as soon as they hear the cops believed his story they think ok he is not the killer let me remind you that cops did not think Ted Bundy was a killer because he was a law student the York Shire ripper was talked to nine times before he was caught, the Green river killer passed a lie detector test and had killed two girls the day before! the sad thing is the Authors have turned this case into a money-making joke and all the people out there who just like the authors do not know anything about how to catch a serial killer believe these authors on who the killer is .Authors write books people they do NOT catch killers!!what we believe happened on the night of Nov.9th is George Hutchinson was out hunting he did not go to Romford as he says in his story but because of all the cops out looking for him he had to stay close to home. Mary was in the wrong place at the wrong time you see George targeted older drunk women but Mary had the nerve to ask for money when George was hunting this angered him and with time running out targeted her so he followed her back to her flat waited until all was clear and went to her room telling her he has money so she lets him in and the murder happens. In his made-up statement we can see he has been listening to what's being said he wrote the message on the wall because people were saying it must be a Jew that did this. Then he gives a discerption of the man he says he sees with Mary because they were saying the killer was a Fournier now there is something else he says that most people miss and that is the color of the handkerchief, he says it red! now he did not pick that color for no reason he picked it because when he killed Kate Eddowes he was dressed like a sailor and had on a red Handkerchief, and he knows he had been seen by the three men coming out of the club and they said he had one on. he made a mistake when he added the gold watch and red stone because he forgot just how bad it was on that street, he was just trying to make people think he saw a dumb Fournier and guess what? it worked! Believe it or not we owe sara Lewis cause had she not seen him we would never know of him. Another red flag was George Knew Mary Kelly why is that a red flag, because a lust serial killer will always try and kill a victim, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always destroy the face and sometimes the body of the victim, we also believe he knew Kate Eddowes and that is why he cut up her face. no other victims had this kind of damage done to them. I see some comments saying he is not linked to any other murders so he can't be the killer. Well, that's wrong there have been lots of killers that have killed victims they have not been linked to and some killers even confessed murders that cops did not even know about that were their kills. We found Jack and we did it for the victims and the families and to stop the authors and other rats from making money off these victims they have been hurt enough. the easy part is done finding the killer and now We are looking for the hard evidence to show the court and the world We will never put out any books or movies and will never take a penny for doing this we did this because it's the right thing to do. Do all of you out there want to listen to somebody like us who has studied serial murder for years or Authors who have been making money off the victims and their families not caring if the killers found or not? Remember people authors write books they do NOT catch killers! thanks for reading.
Hutchinson is exactly equally as valid a suspect as Lechmere - both are only tangentially connected to the crimes, no real evidence against either of them, none of the police who worked on the case thought either of them were anything other than bystanders.
I'm afraid to say as no person was ever successfully charged and sentenced for this case. It officially remains unsolved. So speculation can't be relied on to form a verdict.
Similarities, between Lechmere and Hutchinson. Both can be placed at the scene of one crime. Both are “accused” of telling lies, and both have identity issues, is it Cross or Lechmere? And who exactly, is George Hutchinson? One thing stands in Lechmere’s favour. He never spoke to the newspapers; he never profited from his evidence, and, unlike Robert Paul or George Hutchinson, he never changed his story.
No not the ripper suspect along with all the other suspects just a witness and a poor one at that. Only one man fits the bill and that is Charles Lechmere .
Based on what? George Chapman is way better suspect was a real proven ki11er. Heck I dont even think George was Jack by he is a more likely one than Charles.
I don’t really care what people think about Lechmere. The circumstances and coincidences surrounding him is monumental. One coincidence is one coincidence but when they start piling up, they are no coincidences anymore. It’s impossible for any person to be innocent with this much complications. I know many people don’t believe in it and that they say there is no proof, only coincidences. It’s silly really. It’s like if a lot of houses has been burnt down to the ground and one and the same person has been seen at every single place where the fires happened and at the same time and then claim that it doesn’t have to be him. He just happened to be there. It’s impossible. There is simply too much on Lechmere for anything to be coincidences. He did it and I am sure of it. Doesn’t matter what other people say. Lechmere was most certainly the person seen with Kelly and he slaughtered her. He was a devil.
Lechmere has never been seen on or near any murder site (aside from the Nicholls murder site) nor had he been seen with any of the victims in the hours/minutes before they were killed
He waited for her use the outside toilet and crept into the flat. Done. He lived minutes away and all serial killers are known to their victims. At last someone said Geoge Hutchinson - JACK THE RIPPER.
Sorry... I don't buy that. Apart from the obvious flaw in your argument about the acquaintance of victims and serial killers, where did he go afterward? We know he didn't have a home to rush back to, and no one is ever going to provide a convincing argument that the man who killed Mary Kelly WASN'T thoroughly covered in her blood. He would have had to wander the streets/find a place to hide and hope he wasn't discovered, covered in blood waiting for the lodging house to open or stayed in her room till it was open then hurry back and hope no one noticed him sneak in. I just don't buy it. For the longest time I thought Hutchinson was a good suspect, but just because his statements are somewhat enigmatic and pretty suspicious doesn't support him as the killer. It's just as much evidence of him being keen to lead the coppers on a wild goose chase for a few days for a few shillings a day. Had the inquiry gone on for longer than half a day, it might have been interesting to see how keen he would have been to tell his story to a court, under oath, or whether he would have stayed out of that part of proceedings and not come forward till after.
O.K well they mostly live local then! I thought he was living in a doss house in Commercial Street - I've walked from Dorset Street to the back of where his place was and there is still an alleyway at the back and a low wall that is easily hopped over?? Who do you think it was?
Lechmere aka Cross, was the only person at a body, was known to have lived in the area, both growing up, and later as a father and husband, with his mother still in the area. From a distinguished family in Warwickshire, he, mainly due to due to primogeniture, profligacy and seemingly bad blood with a well financially placed Auntie, had to work as a Cartman, delivering meat, while his relatives, still had the various manor houses and cottages, the primary one in Warwickshire, another in Shropshire, confirmed through documentation. Found alone with a body. Used to cutting meat and using knives, and normal to have blood on his overalls. Known to be in a situation that can lead to psychological issues, which, if left unchecked, can become pathological. Geographic profile shows a statistically high correlation. In conclusion, nothing to see here, let’s look at the local nutters who stood out like sore thumbs, who were all looked into at the time and dismissed.
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | กลุ่มสีเหลืองวันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_FdxGT3WV4/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant as always Mr. Jones.
This will be a long reply, since Hutchinson is a viable candidate for Mary Kelly’s murder.
I would argue that another red flag is that Hutchinson, according to his own statement, had walked 17 miles (27,4 km) during the evening and well into the night and must have been quite tired. Yet he claimed to have stood for 45 minutes at Miller’s Court, and in spite of being exhausted could provide an extremely detailed, and quite unbelievable, description of the alleged killer.
I’ve said it before; the police today would most certainly regard Hutchinson a strong person of interest in the Mary Kelly murder. Not only because of the aforementioned discrepancies, but also because he didn’t come forward until tree days after the murder. Not to mention that he was at the scene of the crime and admitted to know Kelly well.
A well known telltale sign that someone is lying is too much details, which is exactly what we have in this case. It frankly surprise me that chief Inspector Abberline was so willing to believe Hutchinson. But perhaps Abberline knew something we haven’t taken into consideration. However, had I been chief inspector Abberline I would have put Hutchinsons self proclaimed Sherlock Holmes’s memory to the test, which would have been quite an easy experiment to execute. I can only wonder if Abberline ever did.
I’d would also like to point out that another red flag is when people try to insert themselves into police investigations, particularly regarding murders and specifically when dealing with serial killers.
Disclaimer: in the following text I’m just thinking out loud, which means conjecture and speculation, but there might be one or two deductions that could be of interest.
I’d like to point out that we only have Hutchinson word that he arrived to Whitechapel just before two o’clock when he claimed to have met Kelly and the alleged man. In reality he may have arrived earlier, or later for that matter. Sara Lewis presumably saw Hutchinson at 2.30, but that only confirms that he, if that indeed was him, was there at that particular time. Not that he already had been there for more than half an hour, and not that he didn’t stay longer than he claimed to the police.
Hutchinson claimed that he met Kelly before or around 2 o’clock, yet when Lewis passed the man who presumably was Hutchinson shortly after 2.30, she observed a man in the company of an obviously drunk woman further up the courtyard. That couldn’t have been Mary Ann Cox, a prostitute who also lived in Miller’s Court, since she left at 1 p.m. and didn’t return until approximately 3 a.m.
But what if the man standing at the entrance of Miller’s Court wasn’t Hutchinson but that the real Hutchinson in fact was the man accompanying the woman, i.e. Mary Kelly, further in? The man standing at the entrance could have had a completely different agenda that had nothing to do with neither Kelly nor Hutchinson, but for reasons unknown he may have been reluctant to talk to the police.
The reason for this speculation is that Hutchinson never mentioned this couple, that couldn’t have been Kelly and the alleged man according to Hutchinson’s own timeline of events. That is odd to say the least
But regardless if Hutchinson was the man at the entrance or the man further in, the fact that Sara Lewis saw him may very well have been the reason why Hutchinson decided to come forward. He probably didn’t know how much Mrs. Lewis had seen, or if she could identify him.
However, if Hutchinson was guilty of the murder of Mary Kelly, Mrs. Lewis testimony must have sparked a good portion of paranoia in him that likely grew by the minute. He had to manufacture an explanation for his presence at the murder scene, which he likely rehearsed many times, hence the absurdly meticulous description of the alleged man.
Moreover, there was also a young couple who may have seen Hutchinson at the same time, who for unknown reasons didn’t come forward. That may have increased Hutchinson paranoia even further. We’re also unaware if someone saw him bloodstained after the murder and put two and two together as the gruesome details of the murder were revealed, for which Hutchinson quickly had to come up with an excuse in form of an manufactured alibi.
Another interesting thing is that according to previously mentioned Mary Ann Cox, Kelly was seen with a ginger-haired man, aged approximately 36, at 11:45 p.m. This man was wearing a black felt bowler hat, had a thick mustache and blotches on his face. After entering 13 Miller's Court Kelly began singing, seemingly uninterrupted, until 1.30-ish. Kelly was still singing when Cox left again shortly after 1 a.m. but it was reportedly silent Elizabeth Prater went to bed at 1.30. The ginger-haired man was never seen exiting Kelly’s room. That is only 20 minutes before Hutchinson claimed to have entered the scene.
A quick side note: I know that it’s stereotyping, and perhaps even prejudice, but Mary Kelly was from Ireland where ginger hair is quite common. What if the history Kelly was running from finally caught up with her in the form of the ginger-haired man?
As previously mentioned much of this is of course speculations, but I dare to say that Hutchinson remains a viable person of interest in the murder of Mary Kelly, at least in my book.
The murder in itself is much more personal than any of the previous murders, and Hutchinson himself claimed he was well acquainted with Kelly. The fact that the murder was committed indoors and that Kelly was much younger than the other victims may suggest that the murder was planned and she was selected as target beforehand, unlike the previous murders that seems to be unorganized and opportunistic in nature. Considering the extensive time the killer spent mutilating the corpse he must have known he wouldn’t be disturbed in his work. Otherwise he would be trapped in a small room with only one way out. That takes planning, preparation and very likely stalking to gather information. Something a man with no steady job would have time to do. A man who lived in the area that forensic geo-positioning profiling regard as the likely lair of JTR.
I’m not saying that Hutchinson was the culprit in the other murders, fact is I don’t believe he was, but there are undeniably circumstantial evidence pointing to that he may have been the butcher of number 13 Miller's Court.
Finally, a mystery within the mystery.
Both Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis reported hearing a single loud cry of “Murder!” between 3.30 am and 4 a.m. But is it really reasonable to assume that was Mary Kelly’s voice? Is screaming “Murder!” the first word that would pop into one’s mind when being attacked? Wouldn’t high pitched inarticulate screams come much more natural, and possibly “Help!”?
Could the cry “Murder!” have slipped from an unknown female witness who either witnessed some of the mutilation or discovered the body afterwords, hours before Thomas Bowyer saw the gruesome scene through the broken window at 10.45?
Then who? And what happened to her?
Could it have been Mary Ann Cox who arrived later than she stated at the inquest? Could it have been Maria Harvey, Lizzie Albrook, Elizabeth Foster or some other friend of Mary Kelly who planned to exploit Kelly’s hospitality? Perhaps the mysterious woman actually saw the killer and was too shocked and terrified to talk to the police, risking having her name printed in the tabloids? Perhaps she was threatened to silence or simply didn’t want to get involved due to reasons beyond our knowledge.
I’m going to stop rambling now. If you got this far I humbly thank you for reading.
Yeah but you don't give G HUTCHINSON any motive yet say it needed planning Kelly's q needed it and so G H he planned to have particular murdered in that particular way - Why her the other women were picked and their has to be some planing or Alot of Luck and maybe less planing -I'm saying if Hutchinson did murder Kelly he certainly seems to have enjoyed himself because he Couldn't always select a murder victim .
@@jamescorlett5272 There could be a number of reasons for a motive, but since that entirely would be based upon speculations I left it out it in the OP. But he may have been obsessed with Kelly and when he was rejected and ridiculed he turned to violent murder and desecration for instance (she was known to be mean when she drank). He may have blamed her for ruining his life if she contaminated him with syphilis which he in turn transferred to his wife causing her a miscarriage.
Hello, Great points!! I too believe that Hutchinson should be examined a lot more than what some give credit for. My issues with Hutchinson are in breaking down his story.
1) He could have easily lied about getting back from Romford, and I believe that he did. As you stated, Mary Ann Cox sees a man with Kelly with blocthy face, and ginger hair, and STOUT. This description is also given by witnesses in the case of Elizabeth stride. Later, Lewis gives the description and also uses the word STOUT in her description, that we of course know was the man identifying himself as Hutchinson.
2) Kelly asked for 6P. Why 6P? Why would Kelly ask specifically for 6P? Why not 4P, 10P, 8P, or more logically “Any spare money that you could lend” but he says she specifically ask for 6P. Why? So here is Hutchinson, no place to sleep and now mentioning 6P. I think Kelly was going to charge him 6P for lodging.
3) Big thick gold watch chain. So we ignore the fact that this guy (Astrak man) is walking around the worse area of Whitechapel at 2:00AM and that he is Jewish in a time and place where there was a lot of antisemitism and just taking a stroll, but he also has his coat opened in the very cold and rainy weather. According to Hutchinson he follows them, close enough where he can hear what they are saying, and at no time did Kelly ever say “George!! What are doing?” Or “leave us alone” or anything to him. Didn’t even acknowledge him. And likewise he never says to Kelly “this guy doesn’t look right” etc.
4) Hung around until 3:00 AM. Same time Dr Bond puts Kelly’s time of death.
5) Hutchinson says that before he left that no sound was coming from Kelly’s room and no light. How did he know this unless he got close enough to her window (the one with the hole in it) to see or hear? But now he has an excuse if anybody puts him next to Kelly’s room as Lewis already put him at the scene.
You already addressed the other points in your comment. It is also noteworthy that had this George Hutchinson have been an alias then perhaps look at George Wylie Hutchinson for inspiration with regards to the dates of when the murders started and ended with his work on Cloomber.
My opinion is that Hutchinson, or the man who identified himself as George Hutchinson was with Kelly prior to the murder and drinking with her. An agreement for lodging (or perhaps as a customer) was made for 6P. Kelly took another client that evening and told Hutchinson to wait outside until she was done. Hutchinson waits for man to leave and then comes back into the room and kills Kelly. Remember, Kelly seemingly did not engage in any sexual activity with Blotchy/Hutchinson rather she sang to him and shared a meal of fish and potatoes.
@@jamescorlett5272I don’t think that Hutchinson’s original plan was to kill Kelly. I think that in his own sick way, he loved Kelly. Just as Dahmer loved his last victim that he killed.
It's interesting that George Hutchinson might have been Frederick Bailey Deeming, trying to throw the police off his trail and having a bit of fun with them.
I love your videos. They are so interestingly detailed & very well presented.
Fantastic video as always. I've always been interested in the Ripper murders though knew very little. You have changed that, thank you.
Fascinating as always, Richard! Over-elaborate detail is customarily regarded as a bit of a red flag for identifying liars - my gut feeling says he was looking for a combination of attention and payout.
If the man was wearing a huge chain and watch made of gold, why was he not mugged? I find his description to elaborate. I would go for A
Obviously, Jack the Ripper didn’t fear a mugging, and the police thought similar.
@@davekeating.However JTR was most likely local, and people in Whitechapel wouldn’t wear a thick gold chain, let alone own one.
@@Legionmint7091 Even now one can encounter all kinds of class and attire on an East End street late at night. Your assumptions only serve to eliminate a whole swathe of viable suspects!
Another thing is he fits previous descriptions, and could have been invented by George. Did Mary take the well dressed man home ?
Time to think more laterally. Most of all the witness descriptions don't fit into Whitechapel. The pros clients were from the bottom strata of society. Yet the bulk of the witness statements contradict this. They are well dressed men or clerk like appearance. For example, Stride was seen talking to a man in a affluent leather coat. He should have been a walking ATM for her. But the witness herd Stride say " not tonight pal " She knew he didn't belong there. One witness identikit showed an exact drawing of suspect Micheal Maybrick ( who is envolved in these murders ). Hutchinson's man is part of a long string of men who are clearly not of the bottom strata. The epitome is Martha Tabram ( who clearly is a victim ). Several witnesses saw her with only 2 men all night. Both of them were Gaurdsmen. What the hell were men of such high status doing in Whitechapel at 1.00am? Guardsman are the monarchy security force. Michael Maybrick knew Prince Albert
It makes me believe strongly that the state ( or monarchy) is envolved. There is just too much smoke in this direction.
Happy Easter Richard!
The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand
I’d love to see you get Steve blomer on again the interviews with you and him are very good. And I learned a lot about kosminski and things from watching your videos with him.
Great video
Yes, I like Blomer too.
More videos please. So wonderfully done. ❤
As I recall, Sergeant Badham changed the name of the pub from The Ten Bells to The Queen's Head in the statement
Great work as always Richard.
Getting lots of likes on FB.
Great video, Richard. Like your good self, I can only surmise that George witnessed something without knowing his true motives. The mystery continues.
Great video! He’s definitely someone that would be worth investigating as he was around the crime scene possibly around the time of the murder. That said, I am at the opinion he was embellishing the details to get the monetary payoff by the police. I would find it hard to believe that if he was Jack the Ripper that he would openly talk about what he saw to the police and especially to his fellow resident that encouraged him to take his story to the police. Interesting witnesses/suspect.
Another exquisite video Richard!
Maybe this is another occasion where we need to send another conversation on the channel with Steve Blomer - his expertise on the case is needed to get the more rational answer to your question.
Very informative. Thank you.
Hutchinson was skint. He intended to rob Mr. Rich when he left Mary Kelly’s. It would have been an interesting tussle. Would Hutchinson have succeeded? Not if the Ripper got to pull out his knife instead of his wallet!
Will you be making an episode on Jacob Levy or James Kelly as JTR suspects?
Jacob is the best suspect. Not Charles as some want to believe.
Another wonderful video. And just another character in the JTR story. I don't believe Hutchinson is the aforementioned, but I do think his statements are questionable. Too detailed in my opinion. Though we'll never know exactly.
An excellent video Richard !
Thanks Rich another great post 👍
This is a really interesting take
He is the only person who, by modern standards, would be a suspect. His allegation that he had leant her so much money despite her being little more than an acquaintance, his extremely elaborate description and story about overhearing part of their conversation, the fact that despite living so close by, knowing her, and seeing her with someone he apparently considered so sketchy he felt the need to duck his head down and look at/take mental notes about…but took him three days to go to police, and only because his name had been printed in the paper…all suspect as HELL. Even though what’s known about him is pretty limited, what is known checks off too many boxes for him to not be just as high up on the list as Lechmere. If not higher. The only thing that really makes Lech a good suspect is placement at the finding of one of the bodies, but that’s about it. Versus Hutchinson who was seen by someone else lurking outside the final canonical victims rented room, lived in the projected area he likely lived in, etc.
He knew Mary Kelly well as a paying customer. Something he was never going to admit to the police or newspapers. Everybody knew exactly what he meant when he said, “Mary Kelly asked him for six pence” The person who carved up Mary Kelly was an experienced butcher or battlefield surgeon!
Hutchinsons name never appeared in any paper before he came forward - perhaps G H was Kelly's murderer perhaps even the ripper - Hutchinson was very cocky in coming forward whatever else he might have been we might just find out someday .
Thank you so much for the videos.
Hutchinson is as good a suspect as any in my opinion although the 1 a.m curfew means that he would have to wonder the streets after the murders. That's too risky isn't it.
We know there was a woman with Mary when Barnett visited her and that she left. I think that same woman or another came back. There was a woman with Mary and she didn't leave until the next morning.
George Hutchinson told tge police he used to be a groom but was now looking for work as a labourer. My research has found a George Hutchinson, groom, Middleton, Durham in the 1881 census. In the 1891 census, he was back in Durham working on the railways.
Excellent video Richard,like everything else with this case questions lead to more questions and seldom satisfactory answers,as for Hutchinson?his description of the man only stops short of detailing his underwear! difficult to believe by any stretch of the imagination,anyway excellent channel Richard
As you mention Richard, If we agree that Jack the Ripper was responsible for the 5 canonical murders in Whitechapel in 1888, and there being tenuous evidence that George Hutchinson was involved in the last of them (with absolutely no evidence that he was connected with the other 4) then George Hutchinson simply cant be Jack the Ripper. Why would a crazed serial killer make himself known to the police? That doesnt make sense. I believe that George Hutchinson is one of the best witnesses in the whole case simply because he was able to give such a detailed description of the man that Mary Kelly was with. All descriptions of JTR up to this point had only described the type of hat he was wearing, that he had a black mustache, long black coat and mixed opinions as to his age and height (as well as the tied package he was seen to carry). The type of description proffered by Mr Hutchinson is just the one we would hope to have. And that Abberline so believed his story is enough for me to believe that Hutchinson was being truthful in his testimonies. Some people are simply better than others at recalling detail, particularly, in this case, where Hutchinson had reason to be observing this man anyway. In order to discover the identity of JTR you have to find evidence that links the murders together. Hutchinson had no motive and there's very little here to suggest he was responsible for MJKs murder let alone any of the others
lots of serial killers inject themselves into the case and George Hutchinson is no different! he was stalking Mary Kelly that night and got spooked by Sara Lewis enough to make up a story. he also wanted to know what the police knew.
The KEY Question. As George was either JACK or a Watcher/ Protector.
For me it’s between Hutchinson or lechmere
He is interesting, at the least. Spotted lingering about the crime scene, on the night of her murder.
That was - yeah - an almighty headache - well done!! If you look at Google Maps and where at 39-41 Commercial Street, there is an alleyway behind. Did he bunk in and out of the doss house?
Very interesting. Many thanks :)
I’ve always believed Hutchinson, with his stalkish behaviour, killed Kelly, but that this murder was a stand-alone, and has been mixed in with the other canonical four.
George is definitely a witness. His statement is helpful especially saying the man can be identified by him if he seen him again.
Hutchinson didn't really give a good reason why he followed Kelly and the man, or what he was waiting for outside Miller's Court, or why he stopped waiting. His best reason would have been that he thought the man might attack Kelly, yet he specifically said he didn't think that. (He also said he could swear to the man anywhere, but wasn't sure if a man he saw on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday morning was he.) Another possibility is surely that he did indeed wait for the man to emerge, possibly quickly established that he'd killed Kelly, caught up with the man, followed him, and ultimately killed him.
It's C for me. Great video.
When you look ar it there are red flags but think he was a witness that wanted his little bit of fame and cash.
The description far to detailed bushie eye browes when said hat pulled down . Walked softly etc sound like try to describe JTR to me
That said if he was JTR you could argue the same profile as Lechmere at seen and clever misinformation .
Love your content 👍
I surpose it's understandable the law would not expect the dread " ripper "to walk in the station - but i can't believe Hutchinson thought he was likely to be recognised by the woman Sarah Lewis who said she saw " somebody " - so imo G H deliberately waited for the Inquest to end as he was never there but saw a opportunity to make money from Kelly's death through newspaper interviews and possibly intentionally taking the police on a wild goose chase for himself - his story of the man who spoke with Kelly is so Ludicrously detailed that it beggars believe that Abberline and the cops seemed to believe him - he says he waited outside her place for around 45 minutes yet if as he seems to be saying and waited that long he would have surely looked through the broken window but says he didn't or doesn't say he did - if Mary's death was by the " ripper " then imo Hutchinson very likely was her butcher i think he was possible stalking her - the " ripper " got a kick outta the risks he took and perhaps speaking to his nemesis was just to good a offer to turn down - who knows but it really does fit in with my view of jack perhaps even hinting of the chalked message.
Great video Richard. 👍🏽👍🏽 Hutchinson may or may not have been Jack the Ripper, but more than likely is the man who murdered Kelly.
Hutchinson is a better suspect than most of the famous people put forward by arm chair detectives. He fits the psychological profile & he can be placed near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder shortly before or after her t.o.d.....
Great job Mr Jones, thanks for all you do for us ripperologists.
With all due respect to people who believe Charles Lechmere/Cross was the ripper, George Hutchinson imo is a more plausible suspect.
Many other men walked that same route as Cross/Lechmere on their way to work and that early in the am.
As far as i know Lechmere had no other issues with police other than he accidentally killed a boy with his carriage a decade earlier, that doesn't fit the psychological profile of a killer of this caliber. The ripper MUST have had a mental illness and Lechmere had not.
Even though i believe A. Kosminski was the ripper i consider Hutchinson a better suspect than any other because of: his knowledge of the area, his exaggerated detailed description of the suspect,his lateness to come forward and was put in the crime area like: "waiting for someone to come out" by Kelly's lodgings.
He probably made up the description cuz he knew the press will track him and offer him money to do interviews, like it happened with Israel Schwartz.
NOTE TO MR JONES: We'd appreciate if you can do research on a few of the first books written on the ripper, i e. The man who allegedly interviewed Fred Best was researching the case with people who lived through the murders.
My point is that in some of those old/first books on the subject there may be some truth since they interviewed and had access (probably) to original documents.
Thanks again Mr Jones.
Hutchinson is a viable suspect, one of the better ones I think, but like every Ripper suspect, it's more likely that he wasn't the Riper than that he was. It's more likely that either he was seeking attention an/or money, or that his memory added details to the description that weren't really there, maybe without him even intending to do that.
Although I don't think he was the Ripper he was seen very near the scene of the murder. This of course negates Lechmere's status as the only person seen at the scene of a JTR murder who was positively identified.
Elgin, Illinois, is pronounced EL-gin, with the gin being pronounced like the liquor
Thank you Richard 👍
As far as history knows, George was a weirdo hanging around Millers Ct the night/ early morning of the day of the murder. That’s it. I think he was telling a story to get a piece of that Ripper reward money.
Whats pls opinions about james maybrick diary and book?
Certainly a very interesting person of interest in the case. Lots of layers to this.
Odd, Hutchison never mentioned seeing Sarah Lewis. However, she saw him, stopping on Dorset Street, looking up Miller’s Court as she entered, about 2.30am. The couple seen by Sarah Lewis near the Britannia pub could not have been Mary Kelly and her killer if Hutchinson was by that time already outside Miller’s Court, having followed Mary and her client there!?
Just seeing the video title, I thought it said George HARRISON, who I have a hard time picturing involved in the Ripper investigation in any way.
If only John & Paul let George write more songs, he could have taken a different path
Just as a small assist, Mr. Jones, Elgin in the United States is pronounced El-jin.
As I understand it, a groom would have been a cut or two above a laborer in those days, so Hutchinson would have been at a bit of a personal rock bottom around this time. If his testimony was in any respect false, then I suspect that his motives were monetary.
I wonder where the idea that Jack the Ripper wore a top hat and cloak came from.
When the theories of him were as being a gentlemen.
When such a crucial witness is ignored by the police, it's an obvious sign of a cover up to some degree
Hutchinson is very dodgy, hanging about Kelly's lodgings, sort of stalking I reckon and gives a description of a man he said he saw which is over dramatic, and blaming the Jews, which was the common view taken. something just is not right with Hutchinson. Good stuff.
I suspect Aberline knew the caliber of the man he interviewed, just as he did with Lechmere/Cross. JTR was a killer not a perv like Hutchinson. Have a read of Philip Sugden's book to see what he thought about Hutchinson.
Great video. Thanks for sharing. I don't think he was the Ripper.
He walked very softly...interesting
i think as time has passed there three men stand out as being jack number 3 hutchinson number 2 kellys lover and number 1 charles cross letechmere
We won't find out who Jack was in this world and by the time we get to the next one we probably won't care anymore. But it is a fascinating subject.
Are there no photographs of Inspector Abberline?🇺🇸
But WHO else saw the Man with coat, bag, hat- apparently only George..if he did exist ? Or was he a man that George had seen on a previous occassion when he described him. Yes, being the last person to see Mry , he invented the Story to divert suspicion away from himself.
Superb.
I'm interested in the man with the black bag who tried to get the two ladies to go with him. Is there any more about him?
He just wanted to make a little money out of it, in much the same way that local residents charged people for a look into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Given thr dreadful living standards of the area, who van blame them.
His description of the ripper points straight to Tumblety
Hutchinson: another piece of the Jack the Ripper enigma!🔪🔪🔪
I believe Barnett is a strong candidate for this murder...
and so, again, none according to witnesses looked like the (much younger) poet previously erroneously suggested without a shred of evidence.
I suppose there was nothing wrong with Hutchinson's 👀 in foggy dim lit London😆
I don't think Hutchinson was the killer. I believe he recognized the man with Kelly and was recognized in return. Perhaps his discription was to put the killer at ease and to not attempt to find him. He may not have intended to come forward except Sarah Lewis forced his hand. I think he saw possibly Jacob Levy who was a butcher in Petticoat Lane.
Likely no more than an attention seeker like Long and Lilley. Doubtful any of them saw/heard what they claimed.
Holmgren is the ultimate attention seeker - he used to believe Hutchinson to be the ripper so No Problems with Hutchinson walking away from the Nicholls murder . way back when of course with Mr Holmgren I think he's forgotten all about George now he's got Charlie .
His story is likely true. He describes a smartly dressed man just like many other witnesses described as well as carrying some sort of package, which again multiple witnesses also described including a police officer.
I think we must, as ever, go with the most likely and say he was simply embellishing the truth.
Unlikely Hutchinson purely as he gave a detailed description- some pple are observant furthermore, in a poverty stricken area with suspicions running high owing to circumstance and the ripper and her being a prostitute with a man apparently not from the area … who would not take a close look and observe???? They were not like nowadays when the young twits get their phones out and video the scene rather than assist or report.
I think he simply embellished his story and was just after attention.
I agree!
N̈o,it was the " GREAT AMERICAN DOCTOR ". Together with his most capable and trusted butcher and hair dresser.Futher they adorned acectly the same moustache,
😮O.M.G...
Have you done a video on the Thames torso murders..? Im convinced this was the work of JTR
UNTIL WE CAN GET A TIME MACHINE, THIS WILL JUST BE WHAT WE BELIEVE. 😅😊
i think he was a very odd person, the way he acted by not coming forward untill a few days after can look bad for him as he was hiding something but who knows its the same with all the suspects they can all look gulity until you look in to them, i don;t think we will every know now who he was which is a shame but if we did would we still be talking about it today
as we go over this stuff over andover it doesnot take us eney where there is so much missing for us to make a reasonable adsumption of eney aspect of this case no one makes a mouve either forward or back,the latest suspect of eney worth was lechmere but he was not a std sufferer which was intemated inDearBoss could Lwright with that flowing handwrightingstyle we have not seen a sample of hishandwrighting another piece of evedence thats missing ttfn&ty
George is only a viable suspect if you subscribe to the "many rippers" theory
Interesting video! My feeling is that George was an attention seeker.
Not a viable suspect for me. I suspect he did see what he claimed and when he got attention exaggerated the details.
50/50
He wasnt the ripper i woulnt think, but i do have my theories about him but its all conjecture and another story for another time
Charles Cross/Lechmere.
Joseph Barnet was Jack the Ripper
The ripper was Maybrick
It was Lechmere.
Only in the "Choose Your Own Adventure" book created by Ed Stow and Christer Holmgren.
@@andrewtomlinson5237 says the guys who’s paid little attention to the nuances of the entire murderer spree. Not just the 5. For almost 30 years women in London were murdered in the Ripper fashion. Hutch was only about 30 in ‘88.
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics people will indulge in to make a case for any man in Whitechapel to be the killer. And will reject common sense.
Lechmere lied about his name, even though he had no reason to if he was innocent. He pulled down Mary’s dress before Paul arrived.
And this is a fact: he spent an unknown amount of time, ALONE with the freshly murdered body of Mary.
@@andrewtomlinson5237 so many folks are on Charles its sad. Poor chap was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
@@mojoe6396lol.
@@davesmith7432common sense is not evidence. There's zero evidence for Lechmere as it stands now. Many many people lied or are now construed as lying for a great number of things such as names and especially surnames. If we brought this up as evidence we would be laughed out of court. Rightly so.
he's at least highly suspicious imo. the amount of detail he "recalled" from under a gas lamp in the early hours is ludicrous. he makes my top 3 at number 2 as he can be placed at the scene of one of the murders - 1 being Charles Cross, for the same reason but more so due to time constraints. my 3rd is James Maybrick because his diary is yet to be definitively proven fake, and some details were not public knowledge prior to the 1970s.
Staged crime scenes ?
Well i guess you been waiting for me. good video on this killer that has fooled so many people. i was reading the comments and there are still some that don't see it. You are right we do not know a lot about Hutchinson or if that is his real name, but I know he is the ripper. Like they said almost everything he said was in the paper and he was watching and listening to everybody, and you can see that in his made-up story. Some people think why would a killer come forward if he thinks he is in the clear? well, some killers like to inject themselves into the case, George had two reasons one is he got spooked the second is he wanted to know what cops knew. People just don't seem to understand that the cops back then did not know what a serial killer was or how to catch one so as soon as they hear the cops believed his story they think ok he is not the killer let me remind you that cops did not think Ted Bundy was a killer because he was a law student the York Shire ripper was talked to nine times before he was caught, the Green river killer passed a lie detector test and had killed two girls the day before! the sad thing is the Authors have turned this case into a money-making joke and all the people out there who just like the authors do not know anything about how to catch a serial killer believe these authors on who the killer is .Authors write books people they do NOT catch killers!!what we believe happened on the night of Nov.9th is George Hutchinson was out hunting he did not go to Romford as he says in his story but because of all the cops out looking for him he had to stay close to home. Mary was in the wrong place at the wrong time you see George targeted older drunk women but Mary had the nerve to ask for money when George was hunting this angered him and with time running out targeted her so he followed her back to her flat waited until all was clear and went to her room telling her he has money so she lets him in and the murder happens. In his made-up statement we can see he has been listening to what's being said he wrote the message on the wall because people were saying it must be a Jew that did this. Then he gives a discerption of the man he says he sees with Mary because they were saying the killer was a Fournier now there is something else he says that most people miss and that is the color of the handkerchief, he says it red! now he did not pick that color for no reason he picked it because when he killed Kate Eddowes he was dressed like a sailor and had on a red Handkerchief, and he knows he had been seen by the three men coming out of the club and they said he had one on. he made a mistake when he added the gold watch and red stone because he forgot just how bad it was on that street, he was just trying to make people think he saw a dumb Fournier and guess what? it worked! Believe it or not we owe sara Lewis cause had she not seen him we would never know of him. Another red flag was George Knew Mary Kelly why is that a red flag, because a lust serial killer will always try and kill a victim, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always destroy the face and sometimes the body of the victim, we also believe he knew Kate Eddowes and that is why he cut up her face. no other victims had this kind of damage done to them. I see some comments saying he is not linked to any other murders so he can't be the killer. Well, that's wrong there have been lots of killers that have killed victims they have not been linked to and some killers even confessed murders that cops did not even know about that were their kills. We found Jack and we did it for the victims and the families and to stop the authors and other rats from making money off these victims they have been hurt enough. the easy part is done finding the killer and now We are looking for the hard evidence to show the court and the world We will never put out any books or movies and will never take a penny for doing this we did this because it's the right thing to do. Do all of you out there want to listen to somebody like us who has studied serial murder for years or Authors who have been making money off the victims and their families not caring if the killers found or not? Remember people authors write books they do NOT catch killers!
that has fooled so many people. i was reading the comments and there are still some that don't see it. You are right we do not know a lot about Hutchinson or if that is his real name, but I know he is the ripper. Like they said almost everything he said was in the paper and he was watching and listening to everybody, and you can see that in his made-up story. Some people think why would a killer come forward if he thinks he is in the clear? well, some killers like to inject themselves into the case, George had two reasons one is he got spooked the second is he wanted to know what cops knew. People just don't seem to understand that the cops back then did not know what a serial killer was or how to catch one so as soon as they hear the cops believed his story they think ok he is not the killer let me remind you that cops did not think Ted Bundy was a killer because he was a law student the York Shire ripper was talked to nine times before he was caught, the Green river killer passed a lie detector test and had killed two girls the day before! the sad thing is the Authors have turned this case into a money-making joke and all the people out there who just like the authors do not know anything about how to catch a serial killer believe these authors on who the killer is .Authors write books people they do NOT catch killers!!what we believe happened on the night of Nov.9th is George Hutchinson was out hunting he did not go to Romford as he says in his story but because of all the cops out looking for him he had to stay close to home. Mary was in the wrong place at the wrong time you see George targeted older drunk women but Mary had the nerve to ask for money when George was hunting this angered him and with time running out targeted her so he followed her back to her flat waited until all was clear and went to her room telling her he has money so she lets him in and the murder happens. In his made-up statement we can see he has been listening to what's being said he wrote the message on the wall because people were saying it must be a Jew that did this. Then he gives a discerption of the man he says he sees with Mary because they were saying the killer was a Fournier now there is something else he says that most people miss and that is the color of the handkerchief, he says it red! now he did not pick that color for no reason he picked it because when he killed Kate Eddowes he was dressed like a sailor and had on a red Handkerchief, and he knows he had been seen by the three men coming out of the club and they said he had one on. he made a mistake when he added the gold watch and red stone because he forgot just how bad it was on that street, he was just trying to make people think he saw a dumb Fournier and guess what? it worked! Believe it or not we owe sara Lewis cause had she not seen him we would never know of him. Another red flag was George Knew Mary Kelly why is that a red flag, because a lust serial killer will always try and kill a victim, they do not know but if they do kill a known victim, they will always destroy the face and sometimes the body of the victim, we also believe he knew Kate Eddowes and that is why he cut up her face. no other victims had this kind of damage done to them. I see some comments saying he is not linked to any other murders so he can't be the killer. Well, that's wrong there have been lots of killers that have killed victims they have not been linked to and some killers even confessed murders that cops did not even know about that were their kills. We found Jack and we did it for the victims and the families and to stop the authors and other rats from making money off these victims they have been hurt enough. the easy part is done finding the killer and now We are looking for the hard evidence to show the court and the world We will never put out any books or movies and will never take a penny for doing this we did this because it's the right thing to do. Do all of you out there want to listen to somebody like us who has studied serial murder for years or Authors who have been making money off the victims and their families not caring if the killers found or not? Remember people authors write books they do NOT catch killers! thanks for reading.
No. It was Lechemere Hutchinson was just a witness
Hutchinson is exactly equally as valid a suspect as Lechmere - both are only tangentially connected to the crimes, no real evidence against either of them, none of the police who worked on the case thought either of them were anything other than bystanders.
Wasn't Lechmere taller than Hutchinson's description?
Thank you for your analysis
I'm afraid to say as no person was ever successfully charged and sentenced for this case. It officially remains unsolved. So speculation can't be relied on to form a verdict.
Similarities, between Lechmere and Hutchinson. Both can be placed at the scene of one crime. Both are “accused” of telling lies, and both have identity issues, is it Cross or Lechmere? And who exactly, is George Hutchinson? One thing stands in Lechmere’s favour. He never spoke to the newspapers; he never profited from his evidence, and, unlike Robert Paul or George Hutchinson, he never changed his story.
George Hutchinson was not his name. Mary knew him well.
No not the ripper suspect along with all the other suspects just a witness and a poor one at that. Only one man fits the bill and that is Charles Lechmere .
Based on what? George Chapman is way better suspect was a real proven ki11er. Heck I dont even think George was Jack by he is a more likely one than Charles.
Ah, how tiresome. There is no positive evidence that Charles Lechmere was Jack. None.
I don’t really care what people think about Lechmere. The circumstances and coincidences surrounding him is monumental. One coincidence is one coincidence but when they start piling up, they are no coincidences anymore. It’s impossible for any person to be innocent with this much complications. I know many people don’t believe in it and that they say there is no proof, only coincidences. It’s silly really. It’s like if a lot of houses has been burnt down to the ground and one and the same person has been seen at every single place where the fires happened and at the same time and then claim that it doesn’t have to be him. He just happened to be there. It’s impossible.
There is simply too much on Lechmere for anything to be coincidences. He did it and I am sure of it. Doesn’t matter what other people say.
Lechmere was most certainly the person seen with Kelly and he slaughtered her. He was a devil.
Lechmere has never been seen on or near any murder site (aside from the Nicholls murder site) nor had he been seen with any of the victims in the hours/minutes before they were killed
Nope it was Charles Lechmere
He waited for her use the outside toilet and crept into the flat. Done. He lived minutes away and all serial killers are known to their victims. At last someone said Geoge Hutchinson - JACK THE RIPPER.
All serial killers are known to their victims? Where did you get that from. That's far from true.
Sorry... I don't buy that. Apart from the obvious flaw in your argument about the acquaintance of victims and serial killers, where did he go afterward? We know he didn't have a home to rush back to, and no one is ever going to provide a convincing argument that the man who killed Mary Kelly WASN'T thoroughly covered in her blood. He would have had to wander the streets/find a place to hide and hope he wasn't discovered, covered in blood waiting for the lodging house to open or stayed in her room till it was open then hurry back and hope no one noticed him sneak in. I just don't buy it.
For the longest time I thought Hutchinson was a good suspect, but just because his statements are somewhat enigmatic and pretty suspicious doesn't support him as the killer.
It's just as much evidence of him being keen to lead the coppers on a wild goose chase for a few days for a few shillings a day.
Had the inquiry gone on for longer than half a day, it might have been interesting to see how keen he would have been to tell his story to a court, under oath, or whether he would have stayed out of that part of proceedings and not come forward till after.
O.K .Well they mostly live local then!
O.K well they mostly live local then! I thought he was living in a doss house in Commercial Street - I've walked from Dorset Street to the back of where his place was and there is still an alleyway at the back and a low wall that is easily hopped over?? Who do you think it was?
@@andrewtomlinson5237He lived in Commercial street - you could leg it in 2 minutes from Dorset Street.
Top 3 suspects.Kosminski,tumblety,druitt
Lechmere aka Cross, was the only person at a body, was known to have lived in the area, both growing up, and later as a father and husband, with his mother still in the area.
From a distinguished family in Warwickshire, he, mainly due to due to primogeniture, profligacy and seemingly bad blood with a well financially placed Auntie, had to work as a Cartman, delivering meat, while his relatives, still had the various manor houses and cottages, the primary one in Warwickshire, another in Shropshire, confirmed through documentation.
Found alone with a body.
Used to cutting meat and using knives, and normal to have blood on his overalls.
Known to be in a situation that can lead to psychological issues, which, if left unchecked, can become pathological.
Geographic profile shows a statistically high correlation.
In conclusion, nothing to see here, let’s look at the local nutters who stood out like sore thumbs, who were all looked into at the time and dismissed.
Druitt? Nope.
Sickert
None of them have any evidence against them and none can be placed at any of the crime scenes.
Lechmere is the top suspect.
@@Dude0000 someone had to find the bodies.