|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:13 pm: | 
|
Hi,
George Hutchinsons detailed description of the man he saw accost Mary kelly on the last morning of her life, has been disbelieved for many years, simply people have remarked his 'statement should be looked upon with some caution'
This may or may not be the case, however I ask the question GH describes the man in full detail, but what was Mary kelly wearing.
Surely the police in a effort to ascertain GH realiability, would have asked him to describe the clothing she wore, to match the description with garments found in her room.
I would suggest that as the police appeared to take Hutchinsons statement seriously that articles of clothing found in her room matched that of his memory.
Therefore the suggestion that he was making the whole episode up is not plausible, if he could describe kellys garments then why should he not be able to describe her gents?
if as some have suggested he may have been involved in her death, he would have had other more relevant matters on his mind then to do a inventory on her clothing..
I thought i would introduce this thread , for i have never heard GH giving a description of Kellys clothing when she approached him for money.
Regards Richard,
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
hi Richard,this is just a thought about what you ask.If George didnt go to the police until after the inquest and if the Sunday Newspapers had already reported the event,then he would have been able to find out via one or both these sources.
I think it was Caz who once pointed out that Hutchinson spoke about Mr Astrakhan giving her a red handkerchief.If police had discovered a red handkerchief in her room[cant think of any other colour it would be mind after such an event as that]and maybe investigated his claims as having
known her[a visit to question the managers of the Brittania pub or the Ten Bells would have probably been sufficient to ascertain wether he was a friend of hers or not.This may have been sufficient information to verify at least some of his story.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
There has never been a description of kellys clothing which was found in her room, only the remnants of Mrs Harveys left overs,
Mrs Maxwell describes she saw her in a maroon cross over, yet on the night of her death she was wearing a hat and jacket at least up to midnight, it would be intresting how GH, describes the clothing she wore at 2am.
I agree it would have been easy to ascertain if hutchinson was known to Kelly, but i wish we knew the clothing she wore at 2am, which surely GH must have relayed to the police, they would want varification to his observation skills, for we should remember it was not only Mr Astracan that walked by George but also Kelly.
Failure to describe any clothing she was wearing , yet give a Penny dreadful type account of the gent, would i suggest seem rather suspiscious to Abberline and co.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3915
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
As I understand it, the suggestion isn't that GH made the whole thing up. One can believe that he did see Mary with a man, without having to accept his fantastically detailed description of said man. And one can question his reasons for hanging around in Dorset St, and for coming forward with his evidence so late in the day.
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2889
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Robert has already touched upon the vital point, but let me just elaborate.
1.) I can't see the reason why the police would question him about Mary Kelly's clothing; after all, the sighting made by Hutchinson fell into the accepted time frame of her murder; Mrs Maxwell probably had to deliver an account for Mary kelly's clothing, since her sighting occurred later than the estimated time of her death and therefore the clothes could be one way of checking this out on the police's part. Surely this was not necessary in Hutchinson's case, since his sighting never contradicted the doctors' estimated time of her death.
Of course they could have done it to check his reliability, as you suggest, but I doubt it -- they seemed to believe his story anyway and we have no evidence whatsoever for such speculations.
2.) As Robert pointed out, it was the whole statement besides the part where he's loitering around that probably was a hoax. I never believed he followed Mary Kelly and a man. It is quite possible he could have seen Mary Kelly entering Miller's Court briefly with a client, but I hardly think he followed them because of some suspicion.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Richard!
It must be obvious on looking at THE PHOTOGRAPH that THAT is a sheet rucked up and all along the body!!!! We've had this discussion before I know but if you follow said sheet it goes all around and down the unspeakable bed!!!! It can be nothing else! certainly not a puff sleeved chemise!!!!!!....what luxury!......would have been long gone to 'Uncles' I suspect if she'd had such a thing!!!!
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2893
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Suzi,
I must admit, I used to think it was a chemise as well, but I have changed my mind about it. I think it probably is a sheet and nothing else. And as you say, such a garment feels rather unlikely considering her financial situation.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Glenn..........LOOK at the picture again..you are so right the sheet is wrapped up and around the body and of course....oooooooh god here we go again Dr Bond said that her body was NAKED on the bed
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3918
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
We reach an impasse, because Phillips says that she had her under linen garment on her.
I think that Phillips was the first doc into the room, so his account is marginally to be preferred.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
It is so obvious that that a sheet and not a 'chemise' the more I look at it,it's purely a ruck of sheet....ok probably the cleanest bit on the bed but a sheet nevertheless!
S Hanney ,would -be garret living Artist
Great Britain |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3919
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Well, I suppose it's possible that it is indeed a sheet, but that the pic was taken after the under linen garment had been removed - it may have been in shreds anyway.
Re the chemise, I think it was pointed out on another thread that it was quite common for poor people to end up wearing garments which had started their lives as garments for the well-off, and had then passed through several hands.
Robert |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 219
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Was there any inventory of the clothing that was folded neatly on the chair? I don't recall having come across one before. Just the clothing that was found in the grate.
I agree with Suzi that there is no sign of a chemise in the photo of Mary on the bed. Does this mean that she had undressed completely before climbing into bed, or did Jack (or the authorities) strip her naked? Just something I'd like to know.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
I must say Suzi and Glenn that it has always looked exactly like a Victorian chemise to me.
Also Suzi several accounts of her talk about her being well dressed and the newspapers "dress her up" in a neat hat and stylish coat.She was never described as being of impoverished "appearance"
only that her place at Millers Ct was squalid.
Natsxxx |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 187
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
I don't like getting involved in arguements, but if you have ever seen the shot in Lacassagne, when the image is so much cleaer than anywhere else you will see it (I'm fairly sure this is where I saw it) then it will leave you in little doubt. Not only is it clearly a sheet by her left shoulder, but you can also make out features relatively untouched on the bottom right 1/3 of her face - half the mouth and chin and part of her cheek. Well, it certainly LOOKS like that to me from memory, anyway.
The quote of Bond is a bone of contention, though. Perhaps he was referring to a remnant of knickers and not a chemise? Maybe we can see no trace of that because of the throwing of the intestines over the genitalia?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 220
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Richard,
I too would like to know just what Mary was wearing that night. If George Hutchinson could state what the gentleman in fine clothing was wearing to such a degree, then why not what Mary was wearing?
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2895
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
OK, Robert and Suzi...
Now you're messing with my old head here.. and I thought I had figured it out!
Hmmm... it's right, Robert... he does mention a linen garment, but does that necessarily mean a chemise with puffed sleeves...? Well, just thinking out loud here... forget I am here.
It is a bit besides the issue that Richard raised in his initial post anyway.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Nats - I think this says a lot about the press. I've read in some places that the 'hat' was a myth and that - curiously - Mary never actually wore hats as a rule. Not that that's important to the story, but it says a lot about our reliance on illustrations.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2896
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn,
"If George Hutchinson could state what the gentleman in fine clothing was wearing to such a degree, then why not what Mary was wearing?"
Well, as I said in my first post above, I can't see why he should have to -- the police probably never asked him about it. I don't see this as a problem.
All the best
G. Andersson, author and miserable Ripperologist-wannabe
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 222
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
But, Glenn, maybe we could see what she was wearing that night, and if it was different from what Mrs Maxwell saw her in, well.. Okay, I guess all that would tell us is that she changed her clothes that night. What do I know? Absolutely nothing! I guess I was just curious is all.
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2898
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 12:19 am: |
|
Hi Lyn,
Yes for us it would be important! No doubt about that.
But I can't see why Hutchinson not leaving a description of Mary's clothes should be regarded as a sign of that he told the truth. I can't see why he should have bothered about telling the police about Mary's clothing (or why they should ask him about it), but it would of course have been a good thing for us if e had such a description from him as a comparison.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3920
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
They probably would have asked GH to take a look at Mary's clothes, since they asked him to take a look at her body.
But I can't see what Richard is driving at here. Sure, GH saw Mary. But as for his description of the man etc....we're not compelled to accept that.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Some points that occur to me:
I don't think one can rely in any way on a reverse logic that uses GH's unknown description of MJK's attire or clothing, to verify the accuracy of his description of Mr Astrakhan. This is a sort of special pleading aimed to bolster a particular theory that gets JtR and other similar literature a bad name.
As far as I know people in the Victorian era would rarely have been named in any circumstances. Nightshirts were worn in bed by men and woman, simply because with the lack of heating it was warm and practical. Even copulation would normally have been done semi-clothed. the amount, complexity and structure of period clothing, and heating again, made anything else difficult to contemplate. At the top end of the social scale Edward VII and his mistresses would have needed teams of servants to get them stripped and re-clothed. as we know from the inquest reports, even JtR's victims wore corsets (stays) and many layers of garments.
"Knickers" would not have been worn. Underwear of that kind for a woman came in quite late and was for a long period comprised of separate legs (for obvious reasons). I doubt that any of the women wore them - I don't recall a mention, again for practical reasons.
I'll check the Kelly pics, but I had always interpreted the puff by the shoulder as a chemise. But, I'll look again tonight.
Phil
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
I started this thread simply to suggest that i would believe it would have been likely that GH was asked to give a description of Marys clothing to give some credence to him saying it was kelly he followed, therefore by doing that they could determine if he was telling the truth and not inventing the sighting , if no clothing found in kellys room matched his description they would not entertain him.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3925
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
But you did say :
"Therefore the suggestion that he was making the whole episode up is not plausible, if he could describe kellys garments then why should he not be able to describe her gents?"
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hi,
Let me give you all a possible scenerio, Hutchinson walks into the nick on the monday evening , states he saw the deseased Kelly in the early hours of the 9th, he says 'I have known her for ages, and i tell you what i saw', he then goes on to describe a event and gives a full detailed description of the man she was with.
surely the first reaction of the police would be to verify that the woman he claims to have seen and spoken to was the same woman that was the victim.
Therefore as he was able to give such a incredible description of the well dressed gent , including red seal , watch chain, and even spats, they would have expected him to be able to describe the womans attire, if he was unable to , or gave a wrong description of clothing found in the room 3 days earlier, they would have never taken his report seriously.
But according to Abberline he did, also if Reg was the son of George [ to repeat myself] why pay him the princely sum of five guineas to parade around Whitechapel with police officers to identify the man .
The police at the time were not modern advanced, but they were not void of common sense.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Hi all
Ops sorry for picking this thread up rather oddly half way down and assuming it was another chance for me to launch off on my Chemise No Way argument! anyway luckily it seems to have lurched back to Richards original thread....
Im sure (!) that the police just accepted GH's statement that he knew Mary.....there may be more here as to why that was, but theres no problem here........except with Mr Overblown........We'll NEVER know damn it thats the problem! As to chemises!!! Grrrr No way!!!!! and as to hats again I can't believe that either!..I have a feeling that a marroon crossover could be pulled up over the head too in case of inclemency!
Oh well here we go again!!
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 226
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Suz..
I can buy MJK not wearing a hat.. I'd just like to know just what she was wearing that night. Call it curiosity (that killed the cat, I guess).
I do totally agree that she was naked in that bed. To repeat myself, and others, you can clearly see a sheet up around her shoulders, coming from underneath her left thigh.
I do find myself wondering - for no apparent reason - why George Hutchinson described the gent in such detail, but didn't mention what Mary was wearing. But, as Glenn so rightly says, why should that matter. Just I'd like to know!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2904
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Richard,
It is all very simple. If he had mentioned the appearance of Mary Kelly in his statements, or been able to describe it on their request,
this would have been noted in the police documentation!
It is not.
You are only just speculating here.
I still can't see the relevancy at all in them asking her to identify Mary Kelly. If he goes into the police station and says: "Hey, I knew Mary Kelly and was a friend of hers, and that night I saw her with..." I find it hard to believe that they would need to get an identification out of him. What would be important for them would be for him to verify the TIME he saw her (and that is why Mrs Maxwell's statement was questioned) in order for his sighting to be corroborated by others. They seem to have been primarily interested in his suspect, not anything else.
As Suzi states, this is a constructed, academic problem with no relevancy or real basis in reality and only based on pure speculation. Certainly not common sense.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 172
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I don't think Richard was trying to prove a point here but rather just posing the question. My take on it is that if GH did know Kelly wouldn't he know her clothes anyway? I don't think any of us believe that she had a lot of clothing to change in to. Even if police did verify what GH saw her wearing they would simply attach a value to his statement based on how correct that information was. Clearly the police at the time put some faith in at least the salient points of his account.
Glenn, I don't see why it would automatically follow that a description of MJK would appear in GH's statement if he had given one. Today certainly it would, but in 1888 the police were trying to catch a killer and once the identity of the victim had been established then that simply becomes an ascertained fact. While it may be a matter for debate to us here on these boards, I see no reason why the police would have spent much time on it.
Finally let me say this. I am always curious how others percieve the GH statement and how it was written. I for one don't believe that GH walked in to the Police Station asked to write a statement and instantly produced the document we have. It seems more likely to me that what ended up on paper was the end result after some discussion with various people at the Police Station. The Police would have tried to ensure that THEY had as much information as possible in the statement. They would have been responsible for focussing GH on the points that the Police thought might be helpful in catching the killer. Thus the account is very much aimed at the description of the man. I think it is also possible that GH didn't even write the statement but that a policeman took his statement, which he then read and signed. (Unsure if there are facts to contradict this.)
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2905
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Scott,
What you are suggesting here, are major offenses on the part of the police. Although we can't expect witness or suspect interviews techniques of 1888 to be as developed or objective like today, I hardly believe they would have put words into GH:s mouth -- if they had, they would have subjected themselves to great error of regulations and I don't even think the police force of 1888 was that stupid.
There are not that many signs of the police at the time operating like this; looking at other witness statements (who vary quite much in content and expression) we can't see any evidence on that kind of approach on the police's part. On the contrary, it is rather obvious that they were quite interested in what people had to say in their own words and that they tried to work as open-minded as possible, not least in their hunt for different suspects.
One can't expect the interview technique to be as refined as today, but the scenario you describe is quite unlikely, if not a fairy-tale.
We can assume that a deputy or officer took down Hutchinson's statement and that he then signed it, but there is no reason to believe that he wasn't able to check it's accuracy before he did.
It is my firm belief that the complete rubbish and nonsense Hutchinson delivered, came from his own mouth and not was a silly creation manipulated and stressed by the police. I can't see what their interest would be. They interviewed a lot of other individuals and there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that they acted against proper procedure.
I believe he just came through as convincing to them and that he managed to totally awake their interest in his story thanks to his very detailed description of a suspect -- because that was what they had been waited for. I believe these circumstances of external pressure quite clearly influenced their judgment in a less fortunate manner. And if Kelly's clothing was mentioned during the interview it would have been there in black and white, along with all other details; there would really be no reason for them to leave this out if they found it important.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 173
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Robust debate as usual.
I am not suggesting that the Police fabricated anything or that they put words into GH's mouth. I also believe that they found him a convincing witness. I am one of the few on these boards who has been willing to state openly that I believe at least the factual structure of GH's statement.
I am unsure where you get your assertion however that what Kelly was wearing was of great importance. I'll state it again, once the Police were confident that GH had positively identified MJK then there would be no need for that to appear in his statement. That note would appear elsewhere in Police paperwork, but not necessarily on the witness statement. Similarly, if what you are saying is true should not GH's statement also mention that he was shown the body and he positively identified it is either; 1. The body of Mary Jane Kelly with whom he was acquianted, 2. The body of the woman he saw with the man the night of the murder, or 3. Both of these things?
Secondly, look at the witness statement more carefully. The first part is a clear narrative of what GH claims he saw. The second part is a distinctly seperate section which contains only his description of the man he saw. To my mind this reads to say that while the police were happy to take the narrative part of his statement they also asked him for a description of the man he saw. This was written after the narrative statement and contained all of the information GH could remember. If the police had asked for a description of the woman and considered it important it would also appear on the statement. What I am saying is that it was the description of the killer that they wanted. This is clearly indicated by the fact that in the margin it states that the description was "circulated".
I agree with you that the Police would have been interested in all the details GH could have given in his own words. All I state is that when he (or a policeman) wrote the statement it would be prudent for the Police to ensure that everything GH mentioned was included. Let me state again, I in no way believe that Police put words in GH's mouth.
Scotty.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3926
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I think maybe what Scott's saying (apologies for any misinterpretations) is that GH may have mentioned Kelly's clothes, but it just got left out of the statement - the police wrote up his statement, GH looked at it, added/deleted/altered anything he wanted to, and then signed it.
It seems obvious that this must have happened with other questions. For example, surely they asked him about the man's voice, whether it had a foreign accent etc. Yet there's no mention of this in GH's statement.
Scott, GH couldn't say in his statement that he had been shown the body. I don't think he viewed the body till the morning of 13th.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2906
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi Scott,
And more robust it gets.
Now, you're confusing me, because all of the sudden you are saying things I agree on totally. So what are we debating? I must say, now I am not at all sure what your point of view is!
OK, so you only meant that they wanted him to focus on the suspect. Well, that is also my point, and I think this actually underlines and supports the fact that her clothing never came up. If they wanted to focus on the suspect, then why are we surprised over the fact that Kelly's appearance isn't included in there?
"I am unsure where you get your assertion however that what Kelly was wearing was of great importance."
That is exactly what I am not saying.
I'm saying that if they would have found it important, they would have asked him and it would have been there.
"I'll state it again, once the Police were confident that GH had positively identified MJK then there would be no need for that to appear in his statement. That note would appear elsewhere in Police paperwork, but not necessarily on the witness statement."
That is a possibility. But we are discussing his witness statement as such here and the reliability of it -- not what he did with the police after that or on other occasions. And things said in connection with the interview should to my knowledge be filed in connection with it (after all, so was Mrs Maxwell's). And if her clothing was mentioned in connection with his witness statement, I can't see why they should leave it out -- regardless if we're talking about the narration or not. What he said to the police during the viewing of the body or any other occasion we simply can't know.
"To my mind this reads to say that while the police were happy to take the narrative part of his statement they also asked him for a description of the man he saw. This was written after the narrative statement and contained all of the information GH could remember. If the police had asked for a description of the woman and considered it important it would also appear on the statement. What I am saying is that it was the description of the killer that they wanted."
Exactly! This is precisely my point.
So why are we debating about a lost description of Kelly if they never asked him that or he never gave one? Neither the narrative part or the part about the description of the man, contains no such such thing. Therefore there is no reason to assume or even speculate that that subject came up during the interview. Did the police scrap it just because they found it unimportant? I would say not. Did they forget to put it in? Hardly. Did they file it somewhere else? Can't see why, and since nothing of a kind exists in the vast existing documentation (what is considered lost is mostly the suspect files), I'd say that's groundless speculation.
"Similarly, if what you are saying is true should not GH's statement also mention that he was shown the body and he positively identified it is either; 1. The body of Mary Jane Kelly with whom he was acquianted, 2. The body of the woman he saw with the man the night of the murder, or 3. Both of these things?"
No, because this has nothing to do with his witness statement. I'd say it's very likely that he in such caes was shown the body after the interview. It all started with him staggering into the police station, where they took his statement.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2907
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
I believe Hutchinson was a liar who tried to save his own skin. The only thing in his statement that adds up or is corroborated to some degree is the part where he is hanging around outside Miller's Court. The rest is -- for those who have studied hundreds of witness reports -- absolute bogus and complete garbage. This is not how a memory from an event works, and I certainly couldn't do it. That is also why I disagree that it was a result of discussion with others; it must have been planned for hours and rehearsed. His description of the man is so detailed, that it is a prime example of a fabrication and construction, which I think only is possible if it was rehearsed.
Then the fact, that his described character also is a complete cut-out of caricatures of the wealthy Jews in the illustrated papers (who clearly must have influenced him) adds to the whole phony context. Not to mention the fact that he had legitimate reasons and personal motives for coming forward and save himself out of trouble with a made-up suspect.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dennis: Australia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
I imagine Kelly would have had a limited wardrobe. People in her neighborhood would usually see the same attire. oNLY RECENT PURCHASES OR A SUDDEN CHANGE WOULD BE NOTICEABLE.
Dennis
Mount Isa
Australia |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Guys,
Re clothes.
Didnt they (friends) use to swap clothes?.....Im thinking red shawl here....now where did I get that from?
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3928
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Monty, didn't Dew say something about Kelly rolling a sailor and dashing into the pub to swap shawls?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Robert
There was something about that I recall.oddly this makes some sort of sense here...marroon is red eh? Hmmmmm another present maybe!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi ,
Regardless of Hutchinsons statement which i am of the opinion was released with added bits so to speak, i can not understand why the police would release a accurate description to the media, that would serve no purpose.
The killer [if Astracan was guilty] would simply go to ground or alter his appearence .
Infact the whole of the east end was so paronoid about these murders, that any description issued could result in a person of similiar appearence being torn to pieces.
I suppose they considered catching the killer was paramount, and if people of similar appearence were accosted so be it.
One point I wish to make is.
What was Mary kelly doing walking the streets at 2am, the pubs were closed it was to early for early morning activity , the only people she would have come across were certainly not welcome for a paronoid person such as she.
She was reported to have stopped taking strangers back to her room, it was a rule she adopted since the murders became known.
She was weeks behind with the rent, why was she leaving the relative comfort of her room to walk the damp streets that morning, she would have been only to aware that she was at paramount risk.
And what blinded her sanity to allow a suspicious man to accompany her to her room?
A parcel in his hand , hat pulled over his eyes, all i can say is what caused her to take this attitude that particular night.?
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 446
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
“Surely the police in a effort to ascertain GH realiability, would have asked him to describe the clothing she wore, to match the description with garments found in her room.
I would suggest that as the police appeared to take Hutchinsons statement seriously that articles of clothing found in her room matched that of his memory.
Therefore the suggestion that he was making the whole episode up is not plausible, if he could describe kellys garments then why should he not be able to describe her gents?”
GH said he knew MJK for about 3 years and that he had been in her company several times. So, when he met her on that fateful Friday morning near Flower and Dean Street, besides answering her question, there was no need whatsoever for him to pay any special attention to her or her clothes.
However, according to his statement the man was something different. GH told Abberline “he was surprised to see a man so well dressed” in MJK’s company and he even told the newspapers that his “suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed”. Although IMHO GH was rather vague about why he suspected MJK’s punter, it’s clear that the man was the focus of GH’s attention.
So, if the police asked GH about MJK’s clothes, it’s perfectly feasible that he simply answered that he didn’t know, as he wasn’t paying her much attention. I don’t think the police would have gotten suspicious about this.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2921
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Frank,
Once thing that bothers me a bit...
If GH had known Mary Kelly for three years, why didn't Barnett -- who had lived with her for 18 months -- mention him? He mentions a lot of others, like Joe Flemming... Might not mean anything of importance, but just something that bugs me...
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Glenn,
Ooooh, you are shrewd !!!
I like that !
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Noel Charles Auger
Police Constable
Username: Seecomber
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Donald Rumbelow described the white area on Kelly's left shoulder as 'the remains of a leg of mutton sleeve from her chemise'.
Bond described the body he examined as'completely naked'. It seems unlikely that Bond would have used this description if the body had been partially clad,however meagre the clothing.
It is possible that alterations had been made to the body before Bond conducted his post mortem.
Posters on this thred see the white area as a crumpled sheet and this is a possibility.
If the photograph is put on a computer and variously manipulated,the appropriate area enlarged and brightened,the white area takes on the distinct shape of a piece of Kelly's anatomy.This conclusion seems to be reinforced by Bond's description of how some of the mutilations were carried out to gain access to Kelly's thoracic cavity i.e. her heart
I would be interested to know if any other reader has tried this exercise and what their interpretation of the 'leg-of-mutton' sleeve is.
I know this is a bit off the thread but the matter has already been raised by previous posters.}}
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
George used the 2:00-3:00 time frame for his own benefit.George knew Kelly for a long time,sees her with her clients,maybe including the astracan
guy or others dressed as or almost as nice, some of the time, maybe even the previous afternoon or day.So when George goes to the police he is telling the "truth".(maybe gives him some confidence).
But it's got nothing to do with that early morning hour.
But still he is valuable to the police since any customer of Mary Kelly (within a certain time frame)should be questioned.
George says he told a policeman but the cop did'nt bring him to the staion or even took his name.Given the hysteria of the case and the importance of his kind of testimony ,that's a lie.
If George was a no-ulterior motive,honest,tell what i saw,tell what happened kind of witness
(like Mary Cox,Sarah Lewis)he would have said he
saw Sarah Lewis.George was watching Miller's Court
between 2:15-3:00(his testimony).Sarah Lewis went inside Miller's court at 2:35-2:40.She was the only person.
So George was'nt there.
There's no astracan guy early in that morning.
The guy Sarah Lewis saw was'nt George.
--George the Ripper?
The Ripper was'nt afraid to be seen at a certain distance..Lawende trio..Elizabeth Long at sunrise.
--Sarah Lewis knew him? Or they knew each other?
No testimony or press releas or evidence of that.
(so most likely not) |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
George used the 2:00-3:00 time frame for his own benefit.George knew Kelly for a long time,sees her with clients,probably including the astracan guy,or others dressed almost or as nice,some of the time(maybe even in the prior afternoon or day).So when he goes to the police he is still telling the "truth",(maybe gives him some confidence).
But it's got nothing to do with that early morning.
But he was still valuable to the police because any client of hers(certain time frame)would have been questioned.
George says he spoke to a policeman but the cop
did'nt bring him to the station or even took his name.With the hysteria going around and the importance of that kind of testimony,that's a lie.
If he was a no-ulterior motive,honest,tell what i saw,tell what happened kind of witness (like Mary
Cox or Sarah Lewis and others)he would have said he saw Sarah Lewis.He was watching Miller's Court between 2:15-3:00(his testimony).Sarah lewis came in at about 2:35.The only person who came.
So George was'nt there at that early morning.
So there's no Astracan guy.
The man Sarah Lewis saw standing was'nt George.
--George the Ripper?
The Ripper was'nt afraid to be seen at a certain distance..Lawende trio..Elizabeth Long at sunrise.
-Sarah Lewis knew him? Or they knew each other?
No press release or evidence of that.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 489
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi Noel,
Since a number of people are discussing the alleged chemise in several different threads, I decided to make a new thread specifically about it:
Click to go there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 447
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I agree with you, it does seem a bit strange that Barnett knew Flemming, but didn’t mention Hutchinson. However, this doesn’t bug me big time as Flemming seems to have been an ex-boyfriend of Mary Jane’s while Hutchinson may have been just a client, acquaintance, someone she only knew from the streets and pubs or perhaps even just some sort of secret admirer (meaning that he knew her but she didn’t really know him).
But since I think GH didn’t tell the truth anyway, there’s no reason to believe he was telling the truth when he said he had known MJK for about three years.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
