|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:44 pm: | 
|
Hi,
Although I feel I know a vast amount about this case my main intrest is in the Kelly murder, for i have always believed it was the last murder committed by the perpretrator named as ;Jack'.
There are several intresting points to make.
If we take the events of the evening of the 8th november/ early hours of the 9th we get Mary singing in her room at 12 midnight with a man [ known as [ Blotchy face] she apparently was still singing at 1am.
yet at 2am she is walking towards hutchinson from the direction of her abode, in a spreeish state, in the wet conditions.
The question is why.
Unlike Nichols , Chapman, she was not in need of a bed, Tabram was still on a night out prostituting, and Eddowes had just been released from the police cells.
So what processed Mary to wander out in the night , after the pubs had closed?.
Money.
She did not seem that anxious to obtain money at Midnight , purely swigging beer, and singing, she seemed non intrested in giving Mr Blotchy face any sexual favours, so why did she venture out at 2am in wet weather, who did she hope to meet at that hour.
Too Late for a drunken client, if she was that intrested in obtaining a paid up sailor, or a randy pub late leaver, why did she stop with Blotchy face to way past closing time?.
The whole episode just not seem right to me.
There are a lot of explanations needed, like what was meant by the story that Kelly rented her room out to a man and a well dressed woman that was not known in the neighbourhood?.
Why was kellys neighbours concerned that they could not rouse her that morning and reported so to McCarthy, who apparently send Bowyer to check on her at the same time as Mrs McCarthy and son collected the rent.
The report on the son who was sent to a neighbours house, which has been described as a report depicting a different person, but According to Barnett she had a son aged seven/ eight living with her, and other reports that she had to prostitute herself for fear of her son starving.
To sum up there is a aweful lot of descrepancys about the night of Mary Kellys death, my main intrest is 'Why did she venture out at 2am?......
Regards Richard.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 432
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Richard,
Many of the questions you ask about discrepancies concerning Mary's last 24 hours have been, I feel, successfully explained by the fact that the police did not practice any form of press relations. Indeed, they specifically barred press reps from crime scenes and were otherwise quite tight-lipped.
As a result, reporters had to gather whatever information they could from their fellow spectators on the outside. This was especially so with the Kelly murder because the body was not discovered until nearly midday so the crowd was large and the misinformation great.
Witness statements and inquest testimony all give a lie to most of those stories you mention in your post. They didn't happen. Or, take a more modern example. Immediately after JFK was shot press, TV and radio outlets spread the story that vice president Lyndon Johnson had suffered a heart attack. Whatever else anyone may want to believe about the Kennedy assasination, no one now asserts LBJ had a heart attack.
As for your specific question, why did Kelly go out at 2 a.m., she obviously needed money (and if we are to believe Hutchinson, at least 6 pence). We don't know what occurred with Blotchy-face besides some singing, but we have no reason to believe that even if there was no sex that Kelly was not well compensated. For all we know, Blotchy may have been quite satisfied to sit comfortably indoors, put away a pitcher of beer and listen to songs that reminded him of something. And to have paid for the privilege.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Hi
i think Mary was out so late trying to scrounge money, dont forget that's exactly what she asked Hutchinson for...at this time of night she was sobering up so maybe she was starting to worry about money again. searching for a client? Yes of course, but she found the Ripper instead..i believe the Hutchinson sighting but i must admit right now that the Kelly murder is a confusing mess, all of it.
why did she foolishly venture out knowing that this was the Ripper's kill zone plus the time when he killed (approx)....most unwise, yet again probably desperate for a customer.
money for the rent! when you haven't got any by God you get desperate.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Hi,
I maintain that the best time for her to have done business was when the pubs were turning out, when she could mayby have conned some business out of some drunk, not at 2am when the lodging houses were shut, the only people she would have seen at that time of the morning was the drunk who collapsed in some doorway, or someone who was refused entry to their lodgings[ someone typical of Hutchinson].
This was absolute reckless on her part, knowing that the killer was in the area.
To wander out of a dry place onto the dangerous whitechapel streets in wet conditions seems a very unusual choice, regardless of money worries. especially when she wasted the best time to venture out whilst singing for a hour.
Richard. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Reckless?
maybe, but isn't the point that these women were desperate for money, else they wouldn't have been doing it at all?
Jenni |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 436
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Richard,
Jenni and Mal are spot on -- she owed 29s. and was desperate to get something to give McCarthy. And the ironic aspect is that she was not killed on the street, but in the confines of her room.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
If she was so desperate to give something to McCarthy why did she spend all her money on drink, she and Mrs Harvey were drinking on the thursday , kelly went out on the thursday night to the pub, lets not forget that she had had this backlog of rent for several weeks, the week before she would have owed 24 shillings and sixpence but she still survived her living quarters.
I am sure she was concerned over the rent, but i am still not convinced that the backlog of rent was down to her, Barnett was the tenant when they took over the room , he paid the rent when he was working, mary was not a working woman therefore the room would have been in Barnetts name.
As McCarthy states in the times november 10th.
The victim came to live with a man named Kelly a coal porter[ Barnett] and she posed as his wife.
When Barnett moved out he as the tenant would have been responsible for any rent arrears not Kelly, although she would have still been obliged to pay the 4/6d weekly.
I would suspect that McCarthy felt compassion for Mary and would have accepted as much as she could offer until she found someone else to support her.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3096
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Richard,
"If she was so desperate to give something to McCarthy why did she spend all her money on drink, she and Mrs Harvey were drinking on the thursday , kelly went out on the thursday night to the pub, lets not forget that she had had this backlog of rent for several weeks"
Well, why did most of the prostitutes in general drink themselves pissed at the pub, wasting all their hard-earned doss money on beer or gin when they instead could have bought a night's roof over their head and some food?
Why did Polly Nichols according to herself have "her doss money several times over" but spent it on drink?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
There is no evidence that MJK was a habitual drinker, according to Barnett whilst he lived with her she was of sober habits, her friends gave the impression that although she drank on occassions , she was a respectable girl.
Her fears of being alone , after Barnetts departure may have increased her drinking, but i would not suggest that she was a alcoholic, and would have known that to keep a roof over her head was number one priority.
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 519
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Of those times she was reported drinking, how many of them is it recorded that she paid for those drinks? It's not uncommon for men to buy drinks for pretty women. I doubt she paid for the pail of beer Blotchy Faced Man was carrying around, for example.
We also don't really know about her priorities. It's not known that McCarthy wanted all that he was owed that morning or else she was getting kicked out, as he could have settled for a percentage. She may have also decided that she was going to get kicked out at some point and was just coasting waiting for it to happen and not even trying to pay McCarthy anything. There are lots of different scenarios that could explain what she was doing, I don't think we have enough information to assume one particular storyline.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
The True fact is we are all surmising to the events concerning Kelly.
We know that according to McCarthy his policy was to get what he could off his rents.
We do not even know if Mary was attractive, she was described as 'Fair as a lily' but that may simply refered to her complexsion.
Other reports made many years later described her as a thug, involved in theft and foul practises.
she has been described as a girl of sober habits, and also as a person taking sailors back to her room with a bottle of gin tucked under her arm.
The truth is we just dont know, and proberly never will , unless we receive confirmation from a member of her vanishing Family.
Regards Richard. |
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 1:21 am: |
|
Hi all,
i've got a lot of catching up to do on the boards, there has been a great deal added in a short time.I won't bore you with ground covered over and over,however something has always bothered me about Mary Jane being so far behind in her rent.Why did McCarthy let it go so long? Most doss houses and rooms for rent threw the girls out if they did not have the money for their bed as happened to Nichols (I believe) McCarthy was married and no doubt his wife would never have approved of a tenant, female or otherwise owing such a large amount. Especially one that was a known prostitute. She would certainly have had her doubts about her husband's faithfulness if she knew.I assume she did not. It just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe he was in love with her, maybe she serviced him who knows, but he was probably the only landlord that would have allowed so much money to be owed by a tenant. I am sure this has been discussed many times but I would appreciate some comments on same
tks judyj |
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi again
I think I answered my own question last night while reading Stan Russo's book The Jack the Ripper Suspects, which I am thoroughly enjoying. It so happened that the very next suspect to read was (you guessed it) McCarthy. There were several possible reasons given that make sense. If anyone has additional info I would sure love to hear from you.
thanks
Restless Spirit
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
I think Richard has made a viable point about Mary waiting till the pickings were slim before she went out. I hadn't thought about it before but the only evidence we have about this last venture into the rain is the word of Hutchinson, a man whose word has been questioned because of the ridiculous amount of detail in his description of Astrakhan Man. If we choose to reject Astrakhan Man, why do we accept the rest of Hutchinson's story? Is it possible that after Blotchy left Mary retired for the night? And after that, was it possible that JTR found a way to get into that room without rousing Mary till the very last second when she cried out? Of course this makes Hutchinson very much a suspect. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 438
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Diana,
Yes, it may seem strange that Kelly went out when the "pickings were slim," but then Nicholls, Chapman and Tabram (if one thinks her murderer was someone other than the soldier she met much earlier) were all out soliciting past 2 a.m.
Granted, the first two were desperate to get doss money but we can't discount that in Kelly's case either. Once she was dead, McCarthy and company were at pains to seem accommodating, but we have no way of knowing if he had delivered an ultimate an earlier in the week: "a nice chunk of 'good faith cash' on Friday or you're out by noon!"
She was desperately in arrears on her rent, the last time Barnett visited he couldn't even give her his usual pittance and like many in her situation, whatever assets she accumulated were too often quickly "liquidated."
I don't find it difficult at all to understand why she would be out soliciting that late.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 10:20 pm: |
|
But, seemingly, wouldnt she have gotten something from Blotchy? |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
We know she was drunk before this time...but she was obviously way too drunk for picking up clients, so therefore as she sobered up she might have been hoping to make up for this ``lost`` time, because lost time is lost earnings.
desperate for money i think you'll find is the truth, the problem we have is was this hutchinson sighting the Ripper..or was she killed and butchered in the morning..
well butchering kelly in the morning in busy millers court is plain rediculous...its the most stupid thing anyone could ever do...its suicidal with all the locals up and about and Dorset st busy too...how many potential eye witnesses? 20 or
more!
no, i expect this hutchinson sighting; however flawed is the truth.
this 2am was when the Ripper was out and about and you can bet he probably strolled down Dorset st half an hour earlier and on this second visit; he probably spied Hutchinson chatting to Mary at range....waited for her to be alone, like he did with Stride/Eddowes and then quickly rushed in.
but foolishly he didn't wait for Hutchinson to vanish...no, he was desperate to reach Mary, because this victim was attractive.
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Dear Everyone,
Interesting points, however a question that is equally important is ‘What was Hutchinson doing out at that time?’
Hutchinson, according to the best guess had just returned from Romford. It would take about two to three hours brisk walking to get from Romford to Whitechapel, which means he left Romford at about 2300 – 2359 Thursday. Why? If he had no money for lodgings either in Romford or in Whitechapel why would he subject himself to a route march at that time of night just to wander the streets?
The problem is most people don’t know what it means to be homeless or looking for shelter, especially on a foul night like the night in question. On the streets the most important thing is shelter and then food. Shelter stops you dying of exposure and food fuels your body. You waste neither. The nearest parallel to this situation would be a soldier operating behind enemy lines. The first thing he does is to establish a base where he can hide himself from the enemy. The next is to establish his objectives and then carry them out |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Part Two
Let us say that one objective is to be at a certain place at a certain time, then he makes every effort to be there - at the same time avoiding capture or discovery. If he doesn’t have this type of objective the last thing he does is to wander around aimlessly wasting his two most valuable resources – shelter and food. (The more you exert yourself the more food/fuel you burn).
Now let us look at Hutchinson. Let us assume he was in Romford Thursday night.
First question – Does he have money for lodging or not?
Let us assume not. If he cannot obtain lodging in Romford then he cannot obtain lodging in Whitechapel. The last thing he would do is to set off on a filthy night to walk all the way back to Whitechapel just to wander the streets all night. He would find a place to doss down in Romford and make the trip in the morning.
Now let us assume he does. Two options. One to lodge in Romford that night and walk back to Whitechapel in the morning. Two walk to Whitechapel and get lodgings there. But he does neither. He is in Whitechapel, doesn’t book into the Victoria Home where he had been staying, but carries on up the road. Why? |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Part three.
One scenario that makes a lot of sense and fits the facts, is that night, whether or not Hutchinson had just returned from Romford, whether or not he had money for lodgings – is that Hutchinson had a definite goal in mind. He was going somewhere and it was worth the walk in the rain to get there.
If you follow his route as stated by him, the place that interests us most is Millers Court. That’s where I believe he was heading, to see MJK.
Is there any direct evidence to support this? No. But consider this. If his mission that night was to go somewhere else, an appointment so important to him he was willing to walk the streets at two in the morning in lousy, freezing weather – then why didn’t he go there?
The fact is (according to his statement) that he was walking in the direction of Millers Court, he meets MJK coming down the street towards him, and then ends up outside Millers Court. Is it to much of a stretch to say he got where he was going?
My personal belief is that night he was going to see MJK. That was his objective. When he met her coming down the street however that didn’t alter his plans to any great extent – he still ended up where I believe he was going.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2107
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Maybe,..
1.The fact that George didn't bother with the Victoria Home was that he 'expected' to spend the night with Mary in Millers Court
but
2.When he met up with Mary later and she asked him for 6d etc etc why didn't he say something along the lines of Oh there you are..was just about to pop round and see you (or something in the vernacular!)instead of saying Oh sorry I can't I spent it all going down to Romford etc
etc
3.And then,after observing Mary and Mr 'Tap on the shoulder' he follows them back to Dorset Street...and waits,lurking,only to be seen (presumably by Sarah Lewis).
There must have been a damned good reason why George made that trek back from Romford (to see Mary?)..perhaps she wasn't the only reason why he wanted to be in that area..Maybe McCarthy,who presumably knew George..or maybe not..had something of a role to play here too..
Just musings here but theres something here that doesn't seem to sit right..
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4076
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Bob, very logical. But if GH was obsessed with Mary, then why on earth should he choose this night of all nights to return to Spitalfields? If he'd moved to Romford after the Eddowes murder, and spent October there earning money, why should he choose a rain-soaked night, when he had no money whatsoever, to go back to Spitalfields and see Mary? One would have thought he'd want to bring her back some money or some other gift.
On the other hand, if he did have something to give her, then why did he let her walk by him (twice)?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2108
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Reading back again..
As you say Bob, we only have Georges's statement to go on that he was'Coming by Thrawl St and met the murdered woman etc etc'..
Was he??,
Did he meet up with Mary that night at all?
He could have been anywhere in Whitechapel that evening/night,maybe knowing that if push came to shove he could have gone back to the Victoria Home(probably having more than the odd 6d stashed away somewhere if truth be told!)
Just a thought..but maybe he had called round to Millers Ct and seen light and maybe even heard singing etc and realising Mary was 'entertaining' taken up his vigil opposite only to be seen by Sarah and then of course had to think PDQ of a 'statement' to cover his tracks...If Mary hadn't been 'occupied' who knows what may have or maybe later that night DID happen....
At the risk of a wild theory I believe George did lurk for some time and then probably shambled off somewhere and in the interim Mary's 'visitor' left...Enter George (Mr Invisible..known and grey ).. Spent some time with Mary(!!!!!!!!!!!!)...and then probably exited again some time quite soon afterwards,maybe the 'footsteps' heard etc or maybe not ,only to shuffle off somewhere and lie low until he felt the need to appear at the police station a day or so later,for whatever reason..that is of course the subject of another thread here!
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 489
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
An equally important question would indeed be ‘What was Hutchinson doing out at that time?’
What has always stood out to me is that, unlike the rest of his whole tale, Hutchinson remained as vague as he could be about why he was walking up Commercial Street at that time, why he followed the couple and why he waited for 45 minutes.
What I find equally conspicuous is that on the one hand he stated to have spent all of his money during his trip to Romford, while on the other he said that after he’d left the court he walked about all night, as the place where he usually slept was closed and that he came in as soon as it opened in the morning. The first remark leaves us in no doubt that he had no money at all when he met Kelly, while the other clearly implies that he did.
If he really didn’t have any money, he could simply have said that he was forced to walk about all night because of that very circumstance. There would have been no reason whatsoever to find out if the Victoria Home, or any of the other lodging houses for that matter, was closed or not and perhaps even less reason to mention it. And if he really didn’t have any money, considering the weather conditions, why indeed didn’t he stay in Romford to find some form of shelter there?
If on the other hand he did have money, why didn’t he just say so? When Kelly asked him for money, he could simply have said that he did have money, but needed that for himself, as he didn’t have a bed yet. That would’ve been a perfectly acceptable answer. However, the problem with this (Hutchinson looking for other lodgings) would be that he doesn’t mention any attempt at finding another place to spend the night and, if he really was in search of a bed, he seems to have abandoned this objective the very second Kelly walked away from him in the direction of Thrawl Street. If true, he immediately abandoned his objective for no apparent reason, because at that point he had certainly not taken a good look at Kelly’s client yet.
Unfortunately, we don’t know if he did or didn’t have any money, nor at what point he learned that the Victoria Home was closed - before he met Kelly, when he passed it at about 2 am, or afterwards, at about 3 am. But regardless of all this, Bob, you’re quite right that in the end every possible scenario seems odd. Not having any money would mean that he didn’t have any reason for returning to Whitechapel in the middle of that cold and rainy night and so, it should have kept him in Romford to find shelter there. If he did have money, the best thing would have been to find lodgings in Romford. Which makes you at least wonder if his goal was indeed to find Mary Jane Kelly that night.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Whenever we talk about Hutchinson, we always come back to Abberline. Abberline is the only thing in Hutchinson's favor. Abberline believed him. Why?
There's only one theory we've never entertained and yet the idea was prevalent in Whitechapel at the time. Suppose Abberline was an incompetent. The media and ultimately parliament took the position that the police didn't know what they were doing. We tend to discount that view, but what if they were right?
I've heard of the Cleveland Street Scandal and I know that Abberline supposedly distinguished himself over it, but I don't know much about it really. It wouldn't be the first time a boss took credit for brilliant work by a subordinate (if that's what happened), or alternatively used politics to make himself look better than he was.
What objective evidence do we have of Abberline's ability? None of us believe Hutchinson. Why did he? |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
There's lots of evidence of Abberline's ability--he worked his way up through the ranks. Not bad for a clocksmith! See Ultimate for a brief biography which details his many promotions, all the way up to Chief Inspector. Sugden also writes that by 1888, Abberline was a twenty-five year veteran of the Met with fourteen years spent in Whitechapel. He seems to have been held in high regard by those he worked with. When he transferred to A division from H (at the request of James Munro)w, his fellow officers thought enough of him to give him a dinner and present him with a memorial walking stick. At the dinner, Superintendent Arnold said of him "a better officer there could not be."
It says a lot about him that he was recalled back to H division to help investigate the murders. The consensus seems to be that Abberline knew the area and its inhabitants well.
Cheers,
Dave
If anyone has the East London Observer on microfilm, Sugden cites an article about the dinner 17 Dec 1887. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2109
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Frank
As to what George said..he is 100% vague about why he was there,why he came back and why he lurked...theres a lot of vagueness about George till we come to 'that description!' then Everything becomes bathed in limelight right down to the minutiae.
As to why he so desparately needed to see Mary (if indeed he did.)..perhaps(DUCK!) she owed HIM money!!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2111
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Diana-
None of us believe Huchinson'
This is a little odd I feel! I suggest there is much to believe about Hutchinson,...albeit very litle is recorded to reiterate it.(Sadly)
Suzi |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:32 am: |
|
Having been to Romford,seeing Kelly meet a male and both go to her room at about 2.30am,are statements of Hutchinson that were never verified.Only his presence at Crossinghams at about 2.30am has witness support.
It was bad policeing to accept his word and nothing else.Perhaps Aberline was weary after such a hectic weekend,he would have had very little rest.He did not give himself sufficient time to evaluate what he had been told.
What Hutchinson's statement does,is alibi both himself and the midnight visitor,more so the latter,who surely would have been considered the chief suspect, except for Hutchinson's appearance.He could at least been placed in Kelly's room with no known time of departure.
Was it this visit that Hutchinson wanted also to cover.WAs he the midnight companion?.
Had Hutchinson arrived back in Whitechapel at a much earlier time,he might well have met Kelly and been invited to her room to share a jug of ale,he was not unknown to her. |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
the police believed the Hutchinson sighting, even though it was seriously flawed; because it was probably true..
you'd have to meet hutchinson face to face before you realised his true personality.
i'm guessing he was the highly nervous type..the type that forgets his name at job interviews..plus stutters and stammers, these personalities aren't that rare.
the police would suss him out instantly and realise he was telling the truth.........so why was he so late coming forward? scared, nervous..fairly obvious...
of course i could be wrong..we could all be wrong, but my explanation is quite believable.
it's a highly suspicious thing to do, to wait outside Kelly's for 45 minutes...or is this the actions of a concerned citizen, or an imbecilic/odd/reclusive personality..
we dont know do we, but hutchinson's actions/statement seem very suspicious, but not if he was an odd ball; because that's the way they are. |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
yes its very interesting isn't it and its reasuring to realise that you're all as confused as i am......because the clue to the Ripper is this kelly murder.
well perhaps hutchison was going somewhere else when he met kelly, but because her client looked so damned suspicious, that he then decided to do the `good semaritan act` and follow and spy on them...maybe
or maybe Hutchinson was the ripper and patrolling his kill zone, as usual; when of course he met kelly.
is this possible? of course and it makes sense too....think of it this way.
hutchinson was out late at night at 2am and had been walking a long way, it doesn't matter where he had come from or where he was going
this tallies exactly with the Ripper's tactics..it's spot on.
now then, Dorset st would have been a regular stomping ground for the ripper....was hutchinson
``walking around in circles``, looking for a suitable victim
hutchinson was in a way ``slightly distracted`` by Kelly, i sense he was not wanting to talk to her........he might have not wanted to kill her; then maybe changed his mind..
there's something so odd about hutchinson, its the way he's walking the streets earlier on and seen waiting outside Kelly's in the pouring rain...its strange behaviour, why wait outside for over half an hour...
was he waiting for her client to leave so he could doss the night there, or to jump in and kill her?
whatever the case, you can bet your last dollar that the only part of this that is true for sure, is that hutchinson was seen waiting outside Kelly's
its too good to be true that he so happened to see the ripper at the same time he was talking to kelly...i smell a rat here!
and why did the ripper kill kelly, realising this nosey sod had been staring at him; Hutchinson had a damn good look at the Ripper and Jack would've realised this.
is Hutchinson passing the blame to somebody else, because he was seen outside kelly's?
my guess, either of these two suspects is the ripper..
yes its very interesting indeed
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
The key to Mr. Hinton's scenario above is 'let us assume' and therein lies the inherent problem with all theories. This boils the whole thing down to personal opinion and belief. In Mr. Hinton's case it is his over-riding belief that Hutchinson was the murderer of Mary Kelly, and was thus Jack the Ripper.
We are therefore able to see how all authors, like Mr. Hinton, base all their interpretation and belief on their own pet theory.
In this case pet theories are obstructive and merely devalue any other, possibly constructive, speculation and opinion that the writer cares to commit to public examination. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2112
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
AIP-
At the risk of being a tad 'let us assume'....
'Personal opinion ' a valuable thing in the absence of concrete proof.....which in this case is all we have to go on (and on and on and on given a chance!) and as such would be well up to "public examination!"
"PET" theories.... as you remark on ,are not only personal theories ..they are the thoughts of people who have a committed and well researched interest in the subject and as such should be listened to!
As to devaluation!....
There are a lot of far less, shall we say 'Destructive' thinkers on this thread!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
malx
Is the clue to this ripper murder the kelly murder'?
OK
It's very interesting and has kept us hooked here for more years than we care to remember BUT....
Ok lets look at it all the only main difference with Mary is that she was done for in her own sad room and not in a street,maybe she was lucky then or not....she had somewhere to go at least which puts her a lot better off than the other canonical five...but does it?... If, (and am still on the George Hutchinson idea here) George, as I believe he did knew Mary in one sense or another..he would have known where to find her(well either there or close abouts) so by 'lurking' he would have at some point either seen her come or go from
Millers Court.
I believe without a doubt that there was a reason that George wanted or needed to see Mary that night,alone....with no company......what that reason was is speculative of course but I think its not rocket science to work it out!!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2115
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Gone strangely quiet here.....is this the sound of people going round in circles?...I think so..but hope not...
At the end of the day Hutchinson was outside of Millers Court for a reason...theories abound naturally but looking at it in black and white there is a rather obvious logic here....statement or no statement, the man was there and he owned up to that much at least.
Suzi |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
The reason there is so much speculation on these boards, with unsupported theories, is that a lot of the evidence has been lost. We know so little. If I am put in a pitch dark room without furniture, and told there is a dried pea somewhere in the room, the only thing I can do to find it is crawl around feeling with my hands. I feel the carpet, I feel the windowsill, I check the corners. Do I have any evidence that it is in these places? No. In the absence of information which would narrow down my search, I am forced to run my fingers over every surface in the room, one at a time (ie. try every theory).
Finding Jack is even harder. At least with the pea I will know when I find it because the little lump will be unmistakable to the touch. Whereas in the case of Jack, it is perfectly possible that he has already been named correctly on these message boards. But since there is no way to confirm the truth and the true theory (whatever it is) is grouped in with about a gazillion false theories, just exploring the true theory is not going to be enough to confirm it.
I think what we're all hoping for is that one of us or some of us together will come up with a new way of looking at the facts which will be so compelling, will fit all the evidence so beautifully that everyone will have to concede that it is the truth. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Diana-
Dont know why but am put in mind of a Basil Fawlty line here which started with'Sybil you should be on Mastermind....special subject.........'!!!
I know what youre saying but................
The fun as they say is in the chase not necessarily in the joy of the kill
Suzi
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
We do not know the general belief of police to Hutchinson's story,but it is reported that Aberline at least accepted it as true.Perhaps someone can furnish the report that Aberline wrote to his superiors,or at least a copy of it,in which he states his belief of Hutchinson's truthfulness.I have never seen it published.
Now Kelly is stated to have been scared of the ripper's doing's,yet on the night of her death she takes not one but two men to her room,one at least having the appearance of a complete stranger.
To return to the midnight visitor.If he was a killer who returned later,then he was in a position of knowledge of his victim.He would know that she was alone that night.He would know the level of intoxication and her ability to defend herself.He would know the layout of the room.He could have plied her with more drink.
If a friend,could ensure she remained indoors by offering to meet some or all of the money she needed.Could have left after she had disrobed and got into bed,stating he would let himself out.In that case there would be no need for a key or putting a hand through the window,just leave the door on the latch.
Speculation of course,but we are over a hundred years adrift of being able to prove our suspicions.One thing we can do however ,is read the same statement of Hutchinson that the police read.I wonder why so many of us come to a different understanding of it, than did Aberline.
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
unfortunately there is no proof that hutchinson was hoping to see kelly that night, it could be that they simply bumped into each other as described...hutchinson was suspicious because this suspect looked too smart, sullen and as shifty as hell..hutchinson waited outside because he was concerned enough to do so..
but i must admit this hutchinson sighting is very odd and in my posting above i'm just giving an alternative scenario |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Dear AIP,
Unfortuantely you seemed either to have missed the point of my post or haven't read it very well.
You say:
"The key to Mr. Hinton's scenario above is 'let us assume' and therein lies the inherent problem with all theories."
In that you are totally wrong. What I have done is taken all the possible scenarios and examined them. For example I say
"Does he have money for lodging or not?"
I then look at the two possibilities - he has money - he has not money. I then examine each possibility in turn.
Far from being stuck on one avenue of thought I am looking at all the permutations. I then draw a conclusion founded on logic. Obviously the conclusion I draw is mine - who's else would it be on my posting?
all the best
Bob |
Neale Carter
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 58
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Harry,
I tend to agree with your remarks about Abberline. There is a general assumption that he believed Hutchinson's story, evidenced by the subsequent expedition through the streets to find Astrakhan Man with two detectives in tow.
I think (based on Bob Hinton) this could equally point to Abberline disbelieving Hutch. but wanting to "let him run for a bit and see what happens". The description was so detailed why bother with this exercise - why not just issue it to all police. There was something else behind the "good citizen Hutchinson" and company traipsing about Whitechapel for two days. Perhaps Abberline was dissuaded from continuing to investigate Hutchinson for reasons we do not know.
On another level, we would recognize Hutchinson today as a stalker and I'm sure police would look closely at the connection between him and Kelly for some sort of motive - jealousy, unrequited love, abnormal fixation. At the very least he would be a primary suspect. This is no reflection on the police of the time just the realisation there are so many gaps in the evidence.
However lets not overlook the facts we do have:
- someone placing themselves at or around the crime scene at or around the time of death
- apparently at least aquainted with victim
- stalker type behaviour, ie. watching victims premises in far from normal manner
- unable to adequately account for being there; story is quite bizarre
None of these points are much on their own, but I don't think he'd get bail these days.
The one thing I'd like to know is how well did he know know Kelly.
Neale |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi AIP (again!)
The 'Let us assume' scenario' shall we say..enfolds the whole of the Ripper fascination...the truth (as I type) is that try as we may...without a shock horror hold the front page (hopefully not on the Illustrated Police News) revelation of some kind we will never know.......
BUT
I can't help but think that if we take all we have in the way of evidence,..analyse that...then.... in the cold grey light of the known evidence,....and then maybe look again ... all that is left are the bones we have to pick over....
This somewhat 'Vulture '-like picking over the bones here,even though it's with Hutchinson (who lets face it of all of them was a damned sight more interesting than most!)
May.....just may turn the odd stone!
Stones and turning ...OK! a cliche! BUT I still hope turn enough stones and the worm will creep out!
(never known for mixing the odd metaphor me!)
Best!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2121
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Come on chaps!!!!!
Theres a lot to be sorted here!!echo...echo....echo.....
Suzi |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I've read several reports that specifically stated Kelley was AT LEAST 3 months behind in her rent. With the persistent worry of possible eviction every present in her mind, I see no reason why should wouldn't be out trying to scrouge up a few more last-minute customers. And since when did prostitutes ever work your typical 9-5 shift? They'll always scanning for johns. Living a "hand to mouth" existance leaves them no other option. Again. I find her late night wanderings perfectly normal. Just based on her occupation alone. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
