|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 4:30 pm: | 
|
Hi Guys,
I am confused by the doubts us regulars on this site have in accepting witnesses statements made at the time ie. the actual period of the murders.
George Hutchinson.
Made a full statement on the 12th November to the police on his encounter with the last victim Mary jane Kelly, he not only gave a vivid description known as Mr Astracan but a verbal recollection of conversation used.
The said applies to one Mrs Maxwell, a detailed description of the woman she saw which applies to the victim of the 9th November, and also a verbal account of conversation.
Yet the majority of us still maintain these witnesses are mistaken and worse still liars , and in the case of Gh [ The possible killer?]
I cannot for the life of me see why these statements give a negative attitude.
The Astracan sighting is extremely plausible if one takes into consideration that the said sighting was on the morning of the Lord mayors show as the description of 'Spats' was strictly day wear..
And the sighting of Mjk on the morning of the 9th made by Maxwell also has confirmation By Maurice Lewis, and a further untreaceable Mrs Goode,
These recordings plus the unidentified man rushing through Mitre square on the morning of the murder[ 1010AM] Complete with bloodstained features could imply that this character[ considering the witness was unaware of a body discovery, [and one had not accured for weeks] may have been the perpretrator of the crime has in my mind possible significance that the direction this bloodstained man was heading could have been his escape route after stride when he encounted Eddowes.
I am sure there is a possible connection here.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4295
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Richard,
Hutchinson's story does not in any way add up and there are a large number of odd things in it, that should have been investigated further. Those points have been put up her on the Boards several times on various threads.
If you think Hutchinson's story adds up and seems reasonable, then you obviously haven't read it closely enough. Most of it is made of complete rubbish and quite improbable, especially the part where he 'follows' Mary Kelly and the presumed suspect individual.
Nor is Mr Astrakhan an especially credible character in those types of streets in East End. It only takes a shallow look on the description to see that it is a mere cartoon.
Why Abberline believed Hutchinson we can't know in retrospect, nor why Hutchinson came forward and did it with an at least partly made up fairy-tale, but my bet is that he couldn't turn down a guy who delivered them a suspect when they were caught in a most desperate time of the investigation.
Read through Hutchinson's testimony again, and you will see that it in fact creates more questions than answers.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Dear Richard,
Just because someone makes a statement doesn't mean it is true or correct.
It is the investigators job to tackle each statement and arrive at a conclusion as to the accuracy of that statement.
There is an excellent book called ‘Analysing Eyewitness Testimony’ that I can thoroughly recommend.
It has been long accepted that eyewitness testimony is the most inaccurate of all forms of evidence. I once asked a very experienced Detective Sergeant about eyewitness descriptions, and he said ‘they usually get the height and the age about right – everything else you can bin!’
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Bob,
We should remember in the case of GH he simply relayed a sighting that he considered important for the police to be aware of.
A sighting that seemed extremely important as the person he saw was with a woman that he personally knew that was murdered around that time.
He simply relayed his sighting proberly with some apprehension because he may have believed rightly or wrongly that he may have seen her killer in the early hours of the 9th November.
I do honestly admire your contribution to the Ripper case and as i have said before your book is original and has a twinge of Hitchcock in its finale.
However up to the release of your book Gh was considered mainly a witness to a event albeit doubted in some quarters as over the top.
I still maintain that the man named Hutchinson told the whole truth on the monday when reporting the incident, and if so he could only detail what he saw and give a verbal account of what he heard.
The only contridiction is 'Who is George Hutchinson?
Is he person unknown , or is he the obvious George William Topping the late Regs father.
Who told him and others in the 1920s/30s that he was interviewed by the police as he knew one of the victims.
Reg as i have claimed [ truely] appeared on Radio in the seventies, and relayed that information to Fairclough who wrote 'The Ripper and the Royals'
Therefore using my brain power to capacity i have come to the conclusion that this Gh was the original Gh.
Regardless of suspect signature on original statement etc.
In my opinion all we have to decifer is 'Was Mr Astracan Kellys killer or not..?
I would swing to the latter.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Dear Richard,
Once again you are assuming facts not in evidence. You say:
"We should remember in the case of GH he simply relayed a sighting that he considered important for the police to be aware of."
Who says he did? Only himself. What if he was lying?
There are an increasing number of people who now believe GH was lying, mainly because of the impossibility of his statement being correct.
As you say before my book GH was looked upon as a witness not a suspect. After it is would seem a lot of people are beginning to wonder. If that is the case then I have succeeded.
Don't forget there is more direct evidence against GH than any other suspect. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:08 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
'Dont forget there is more direct evidence against GH than any other suspect'
I cannot agree with that observation.
George Hutchinson said he had walked from Romford broke, noticed a man loitering then saw kelly coming towards him and she asked him for 'sixpence' on saying he had no money she carried on and Hutchinsons observations commenced.
He admitted the man did not seem menacing, and that he was just curious at the mans attire and his being with mary.
I can see nothing wrong or suspicious about our George so far.
Regarding the strangers appearence and as i have stated before the wearing of spats which were strictly day time dress imply that this man was dressed for a event that day which happens to be the 'Lord Mayors show'
also regarding the mans attire 'Hardly dressed for a slaughter of a person ' springs to mind.
To sum up the defence for GH.
He freely went to the police on the monday evening, he recalled his sighting to Abberline, he placed himself near the murder location freely admitting that he was loitering around.
Abberline accepted his statement and was despatched with two officers to see if this man could be seen.
He agreed to this and also that he would report to the mortuary the following morning [tues] at 11.30 am to identify the deseased as the woman he knew as Mary .
My question therefore is.
Do the members of the casebook seriously believe that Gh was kellys killer, stalker, or pimp?.
was GH so paranoid that he was afraid he was seen hanging around millers court that morning so invented the whole scenario of Astracan.
Did Mrs Lewis inquest statement disturb him?.
I would suggest that he may have been seen many times in that 45 minutes but scant attention paid.
I find George hutchinsons report acceptable.
Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
"George Hutchinson said he had walked from Romford broke"
I would heartily recommend Chris Miles' "On the Trail of a Dead Man". He raises the very valid point that GH just walked 13-14 miles from Romford, and then PASSES his own place of residence at the Victoria Home in order to be in position to 'run into' Kelly. This is despite the pouring rain.
Something about this story is fishy. It may be as innocent as GH's being a client of Kelly....but something doesn't add up properly.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3495
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Here we go again!
Right as Bob said.... GH certainly saw something!..
NOW There is an evidence against GH.'....or is there? Hes a witness ...end of story! What Abberline thought of GH will never be known! sadly!
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Dear Richard,
It’s not an observation – it’s a fact!
GH was in the proximity and at the approximate time of one of the murders. No other suspect can claim this!
If you think they can then tell me who?
Leave aside his statement this alone is more evidence against GH than any other suspect.
I mean some suspects, Sickert for instance, cannot even be shown they were in the country at the time – at yet some people still accept him as a viable suspect!
I shall, when time permits be writing a series of articles on various puzzling aspects of this case, Hutchinson, Maxwell etc and give you my slant on them.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Bob,
No other suspect can claim this.
Pray tell me why Gh is a suspect?.
He issued a statement as a witness, his statement freely admits he saw kelly near her abode, and clearly states he ended up opposite her room, and gives a explanation for being there, a explanation he told Abberline on the eve of the 12th.
That does not make him a suspect, it is only the attire of the said man that is transfixed into doubters that make him anything else.
I could walk through my nearest council estate and spot someone in a designer suit[ which may not be the norm] but just because it would be out of character would not make it a made up description by myself i could only describe the person I saw..
Regards Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
"That does not make him a suspect, it is only the attire of the said man that is transfixed into doubters that make him anything else. "
Noooooo.....that isn't what makes him a suspect. What makes him a suspect is that aspects to his story reflect odd behavior. In modern terms, I'd say he was stalking Kelly. Are all stalkers killers ? Of course not....but they do have some explaining to do.
As I said, check out Miles' book. Take a look at the map of GH's path back from Rombley, and see how he walked past his own lodgings in the pouring rain AFTER A 14 MILE HIKE to get to where he 'ran into' Kelly.
There is something about GH's story that just doesn't sit right.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 126
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I'm afraid I'm with Bob and Glenn on this.
"That does not make him a suspect, it is only the attire of the said man that is transfixed into doubters that make him anything else."
George Hutchinson's witness statement, and the problems therein, have been hotly debated here:
../4921/21938.html"http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/22346.html" target=_top>http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/22346.html
Suffice to say that "the attire of said man" pales in comparison to the implausibility of other Hutchinsonisms.
Ben |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 501
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
Regarding Hutchinson...The whole of the argument against him is that he was in the vicinity of a murder on the night in question. He was not 'at the murder scene' as some say, and since we don't know for sure when Kelly was killed, he may have been gone from the scene hours before her murder.
Charles Cross, on the other hand, was AT the scene of a murder AT the time of death behaving suspiciously. Why is he not as well-received a suspect as Hutchinson? For two reasons: He didn't offer a wild statement, and because Cross found Nichols, not Kelly, who most researchers are totally enamored with. A wild statement (many, many were made to the police) and a loose connection to a victim do not a Ripper make. He's a weak suspect at best.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Just for the record, I do not think Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi,
I Agree with Tom here there are many witnesses we could take as suspects.
Charles Cross,
Elizabeth long.
Albert Cadouche.
Schwartz.
Night watchman in Mitre square.
Hutchinson .
Morris lewis.
Mrs Maxwell
Any of the dwellers in millers court.
This may seem far fetched, and i am only being tonque-cheek however i cannot accept GH as a suspect especially if more research reveals him to have been George william Topping Hutchinson as i firmly believe he was, as this man was certainly no monster, simply a young man 22years old who voluntered a statement to the police and for a time assisted them on route.
Nothing more sinister then that and incidently regreted that his efforts did not amount to any arrest.
Regards Richard. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 278
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
Since Hutchinson walked 14 miles from Romford,then surely he walked 14 miles to Romford.
All in one day? |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 127
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
I would throroughly recommend perusing the aforementioned discussions before making the ironclad pronouncement that: "The whole of the argument against him is that he was in the vicinity of a murder on the night in question". The whole of the argument? It doesn't even sratch the surface.
Cross and Hutchinson do not make for an apt comparison at all. Cross attended the Nichols inquest whereas Hutchinson cogitated for three days before approaching Abberline with a vacuous description of Jack the Ripper.
"since we don't know for sure when Kelly was killed"
Kelly was killed shortly before 4.00am that morning, and we must be circumspect in acknowledging this obvious truth. Two independant witnesses heard a cry of "Oh Murder" emanate from the Court. This loud exclamation precicpitated a REAL murder shortly thereafter. Do yu honestly believe this was nothing but a huge, startling coincidence? |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Richard,
If you want to know why Hutchinson is a suspect may I suggest you read my book?
In it I lay out all the evidence for Hutchinsons inclusion on the suspect list.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Tom,
But Charles Cross's behaviour was in no way suspicious.
He was going to work as he did every morning - thereore he had a legitimate reason for being in the area.
He did not lie to the police and so on.
Bob |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 504
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Ben,
Thank you, but I'm intimately familiar with the Hutchinson theory, inparticular the cries of 'Oh murder'. At one time I found all this excitingly suspicious myself, until I realized such cries were a nightly occurrence, not only in Millers Court/Dorset Street, but all over the East End. You must also be aware that there's inherent problems with these witnesses in any event. And I should note that Hutchinson was not the only male in the vicinity. He's simply the only one who stepped forward on his own volition and - despite his alleged (and likely) lies - admitted he knew the deceased and had taken an interest in her actions that night. As I said before the whole of the argument against him rests on his wild statement and the fact that he was in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the murder. As far as I know, supporters of Hutchinson have failed in producing one iota of evidence - beyond that in the files and paper -supporting the theory.
Bob,
Robert Paul felt threatened by Cross' when he approached him. He found him standing still in the middle of the street, then running over the pavement (sidewalk). Of course, his actions are understandable to us. But had the Nichols murder been an isolated incident, he would have been suspect #1. Particularly since he left the scene and had ample opportunity to discard of any weapon. As for Cross having appeared at the inquest, he had little choice. Robert Paul had his description and new his way to work. Fleeing wasn't an option. He reported what he knew to the police and was therefore compelled to testify.
Having said all that, I do believe the police entertained suspicions against Hutchinson for a time. Others have suggested the police didn't even think to ask Hutch for an alibi, but I find this ridiculous. If they asked where he'd come from and where he had been intending to go that night, it stands to reason they asked him where he ended up, and then set about to verify the tale.
It's a damn shame we don't have the inventory list from Kelly's room. If there was a red handkerchief in the pocket of the dress she was wearing that night, that would be a very curious thing.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 505
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Incidentally, since Hutchinson supporters are certain every word of his tale is a concocted lie, why are you so quick to believe him when he says he hung around outside Millers Court for the better part of an hour? Since he's such a liar, he may have only been there 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or not at all. The known description of him is that he had a military bearing...not at all the short fat man Ms. Sarah described having seen. This portion of his testimony should be treated with the same disregard as the rest.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
I personally i highly cynical and so i don't believe anything we only have hutch's word for.
Still - just me maybe!
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3501
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Just thinking here........ that in that case the 'short fat man' that Sarah 'saw' ....may not have been Hutch
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Bob,
As you suggested i should read your book[ which I have done so many times before] I did just that.
The handwiting analyze is intresting.
The words Enterprise, initiative, and ambitious drive and a tendency to over protect are a starter.
This describes a person that was ambitious, showed initiative,and had a drive personality, but was also a caring person. he also liked a drink and had love of literary or had musical abilities.
This would describe George Hutchinson perfectly he showed desire to inform the police, and showed initiative to follow the couple, and he also showed a compassionate nature in caring for Kelly not only that night but previously.
My point is you have freely admitted that you had the wrong man.
I belief G, W.T Hutchinson is the right man,. he showed in life according to his son Reg.
A love of music hall,
A skill to play the violin.
A desire to carry on working into his seventies,his liking of a pint, a honesty that was noted[ like regard to ideals].
The final quote'The writer was either depressed or ill at the time of writing, as resentment, dissapointment,and anxiety were all present'
The above would imply to a person that was unemployed down on his luck, aged 22years not living at home walking around at night, then on top of that found out that a woman he had recently spoken to had been a victim of the ripper, and after worrying over the weekend has the ordeal of contacting the police putting himself in the fray for some hard questioning.
That would be enough for anyone to be depressed and anxious..
Regards Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
..."walking around at night..."
You make it sound like he was out for a casual stroll. He was prowling around in the pouring rain after a 14 mile hike.
I don't think he was the Ripper, but there is more to GH's story than meets the eye. Most innocent explanation is he was a client of MJK's from time to time, and was smitten with her to some degree.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 507
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Suzi,
That's what I was getting at. Hutchinson supporters point out all the fallacies (perceived or real) of his statement, but blindly accept any part that might be seen as incriminating. You'll notice none responded to my post regarding this point.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 793
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
Not that I can really believe Hutchinson actually was Kelly's murderer, I do think he was hiding something - whatever that may have been.
But that doesn't mean that I, or any other 'supporters' I'm sure, am certain that every word of his tale is a concocted lie. That certainly isn't the case. That may have been the reason why none of 'us' responded.
I think that - if Hutchinson was actually lying - the smart thing for him to do would be to stick to the truth as much as possible.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Tom
Give me a chance mate - I don't spend every hour of every day on the boards!
I don't believe I have ever stated every word of GH's statement is a concocted lie. I believe certain parts of it are, namely the totally fictious description of Mr Astracan.
He also left out certain bits that might incriminate him such as what I perceive to be the real reason for him being abroad that night.
I will as soon as I can be writing an article on Hutchinson and hopefully all will be revealed then.
Bob |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 510
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Bob,
Having read your book solidly through twice, and referring to certain portions of it numerous times since, I think I have a pretty good knowledge of your theory. One point about your work that recommends it above all else is the impressive - and scrutinizing - analysis you do of Hutchinson's statement. You state he was lying about where he was standing, what was in his site line, what Mr. Astrakhan was wearing, and indeed that there even WAS a Mr. Astrakhan. This being the case, you basically have him lying about everything EXCEPT that he was standing outside Mary's pad that night. My point is simply - why couldn't he have been lying about this as well? Numerous other alleged witnesses have had many motives attributed to why they came forward - attention seeking, celebrity seeking, etc. Why couldn't these apply to Hutch as well? Why must he have been 'hiding something' sinister?
As for an article, Bob, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure I speak for virtually everyone interested in the case (well, maybe not Radka) when I say it would be a joy to read. Might I also suggest that Ripper Notes would be a good home for it, since I write for them, and could use the competition.  ~~~
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
" This being the case, you basically have him lying about everything EXCEPT that he was standing outside Mary's pad that night. My point is simply - why couldn't he have been lying about this as well? "
Hey Tom -- what's wrong with the simple notion that he came forward because he knew he had been seen ? Makes perfect sense to me, irrespective of his guilt or lack thereof. It's not hard to believe that most East Enders gave a wide berth to the coppers unless they had no choice.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 131
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
At one time I found all this excitingly suspicious myself, until I realized such cries were a nightly occurrence
Yes, but just how many such cries precipitate an actual murder? Not many, I would surmise! When you say you "realized" that cries of "murder" were a likely occurance, what exactly do you mean? How did you arrive at this realization?
You must also be aware that there's inherent problems with these witnesses in any event.
Two independant witnesses corroborate eachother in stating that a cry of murder emanated from the Court (or at least, the immediate locality) shortly before 4.00am that morning. Prater occupied the room above, while Lewis lodged at the house opposite Kelly. On what grounds do you doubt the veracity of their statements?
the whole of the argument against him rests on his wild statement and the fact that he was in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the murder.
I'm dying to know how Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson trumps Hutchinson in this, or any other respect. What you describe as the "whole of the argument" is nothing of the kind. Hutchinson lodged in the very epicentre of the murder triangle, a fact which is true of very few suspects. The location of the Goulston St. Graffiti was discovered in close proximity to Hutchinson's lodgings. Stride's murderer uttered racial abuse to a would-be witness, betraying a racist streak which may also have manifested itself in Hutchinson's seeming eagerness to deflect suspicion in the direction of the Jewish community. The sinister message implicit in the graffiti itself should not be overlooked, either.
Finally, we know that the ripper was decribed, invariably, as short and stout, a description applicable to Hutchinson (NOT Stephenson, Tumblety or Maybrick).
The known description of him is that he had a military bearing...not at all the short fat man Ms. Sarah described having seen.
"Short and stout" and "of military bearing" are hardly mutually exclusive. Why should one preclude the other?
By suggesting that Cross is a good candidate, you have failed to demonstrate that GH was a bad one.
Others have suggested the police didn't even think to ask Hutch for an alibi, but I find this ridiculous.
Why should he need an alibi? He stated that he wandered the streets until his lodging house opened in the morning. He would simply claim that he encountered no-one during his alleged perambulations.
A blind faith in Hutchinson's statement and, by extension, a blind faith in the oh-so-fictional "Mr. Astrakhan" is attractive to researchers because it permits the deluded to believe that Jack the Ripper was the sleek, fastidious dandy of legend. Hutchinson effectively provides the only means possible of perpetuating this obvious fallacy.
Best Regards,
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on December 29, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
"until I realized such cries were a nightly occurrence "
Let's not forget that this was offered by a witness as a justification for failing to act. It may not be strictly true...i.e. blood curdling screams of "Murder!!!" may not have been common place.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 133
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Absolutely, Sir Robert. "Not uncommon" does not mean "a nightly occurance". |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 513
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Sir Robert and Ben,
I've read a ton of Victorian newspaper reports, Ripper related and otherwise. I assure you cries of 'Murder' were common. And it's very possible, even likely, that Hutch DID come forward because he had been seen. But the theorists need to explain the discrepancies between short and fat and military bearing. Make sense of that so that it becomes "likely" instead of merely "possible" that it was Hutch outside Millers Court.
Ben,
I'll answer some of your questions. Since you blindly accept that Schwartz's Man #1 was Stride's killer, I assume you're either new to the case or set in your ways and not open to a change of mind. The likelihood is that this man was not Stride's killer. As for D'Onston, I'm not on here arguing for him, so I see no reason to start now at your behest. I study the evidence of the case free from suspect bias. I'd recommend you do the same. It makes it a lot more fun.
As for Sarah's statement versus the known description of Hutchinson, if you think George Costanza had a military bearing then nothing I say will make a difference.
As for his alibi, there were other murders he likely provided an alibi for.
I should point out that I do not think Mr. Astrakhan - if he even existed, which I too doubt - was the Ripper.
Regarding the two witnesses who heard 'Oh Murder', go compare their locations with what they heard and how they heard it. Doesn't add up.
In any event, I'm not saying it's impossible that Hutch was the killer, just that in order for him to become a fully viable suspect, something new needs to come along. For years now all I've seen is the same old story being told - "he lied and behaved suspiciously, so he must be the Ripper". Tell me about the first 20-something years of his life and the 30 or so to follow. That should give us some idea of his guilt or innocence.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 282
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Tom,
I rate Hutchinson a real suspect,and his statement of waiting 45 or so minutes just another untruth.Along with his supposed 14 miles each way to Romford and back,and his professed perfect retentive memory at the end of it.Special forces would love a troop of such worthy individuals.
The same old story is one that he himself brought forth to the world,and the first 20 years and assumed 30 after Millers Court,are periods only he appears aware of,and carefully kept concealed from society. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi,
Poor old George is certainly getting the treatment on this thread.
What was Georges intentions?.
Outright murder.
A place to rest.
Her pimp.
Take the first suggestion.
If this was the case why would he not pretend to be flush and propose that they went either back to her room if convenient, or go walkies. instead of allowing her to carry on her way and meet a man close by.
If he was tired and wanted a place to rest until daybreak, why didnt he even if he was broke promise kelly that he would repay her the following night when he had the day to do casual work, after all he admits that he had given her money in the past and therefore his word may have been good enough.
And if he was her pimp, that i would suggest was unlikely as he appears not to have been a face the police were aware of in that profession.
Simply i cannot agree that Gh is at all suspiscious.
The suggestion that being paronoid about being seen opposite the court brought the man to the police on the monday is daft.
if he was worried about being seen why hang around the very centre of Dorset street for a period of time, it seems to me that his loitering and the thought of being seen doing so, had no threat to him, after all he had done nothing wrong and his intentions were honest.
Just because his statement appears strange does not make it a false one.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Richard,
No his statement doesn't appear strange - it contains elements that are just not factual!
If I made a statement saying I walked out of my house, picked up a car with my bare hands and threw it over a skyscraper, that would not be 'strange' it would be factually incorrect!
Bob |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 794
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
“But the theorists need to explain the discrepancies between short and fat and military bearing. Make sense of that so that it becomes "likely" instead of merely "possible" that it was Hutch outside Millers Court.”
What you don’t seem to take into account here is that Sarah Lewis paid scant attention to the man she saw standing opposite the court in the middle of the night (why should she?), whereas I imagine this was different for the gentlemen of the press. Besides being interested in the man for his story they also had ample time to take a very good look at him in daylight and probably from even closer by than Sarah Lewis.
This is a possible explanation for the difference between the two descriptions, because ,after all, we know that physical descriptions by witnesses in general are notoriously unreliable.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Below is a paragraph from 'The Wild Tribes of London' written by Watts Phillips in 1855, in a chapter that describes Petticoat Lane and the London Clothes exchange: 'The various public-houses in Petticoat-lane, Harrow-alley, and elsewhere, are generally crammed to excess. Through the open doorways we look into the back rooms, where some dozen men are always smoking,-their faces lost in the clouds of smoke which emanate from their lips. These men are known to the initiated as Petticoat-lane fencers, or receivers of stolen goods. Patiently they sit in these filthy rooms, waiting news from their scouts, who they throw out as antennae to "feel the way;" or for the appearance of the thief's confederate, who "gives the office," and tells where the booty may be found.' I found it on the Website: 'Dictionary of Victorian London'.
This was posted by Leanne on the “Small Point in Defense . . .” thread. I trust she will forgive me for copying her post.
This opens the possibility that GH was one of the scouts sent out by the fences. It would explain a lot of the seemingly unbelievable details of GH’s story. He would have deliberately memorized AM’s appearance, clothing and jewelry to be able to report it to the fences. If Abberline knew about the fences, scouts, and thieves, it would explain why he believed GH.
What follows is a copy of my post from the aforementioned thread.
I think that if Leanne and I are correct GH followed Mary and Astrakhan to her lodgings, hung around long enough to assure himself that AM was not going anywhere soon, and then ran off to the fences in Petticoat Lane to report that there was a well dressed gentleman in a room in Miller's Court. Petticoat Lane was also known as Middlesex Street and a glance at a map shows it was very close by.
I suspect that while George was gone AM left Mary, who was too sleepy at this point to change out of the chemise she had put on for AM. The fences sent out a thief who, unbeknownst to them, was also JTR. Jack has no trouble getting into the room if he is a professional thief. The locked door becomes a moot issue.
Once inside he discovers two things. AM is gone and can’t be robbed. Mary is alone and asleep and he has an opportunity to do something he hasn't been able to do for over a month.
The next day George hears that JTR has struck again, this time the very woman he was tailing the night before. He is in a dither not knowing what to do. People who are faced with a difficult decision (where both alternatives are bad) often act inconsistently as they consider one alternative and then the other.
GH has a pretty good idea that the thief was also JTR, but he doesn't know which thief was used, and in any case does not want Jack coming after him so he decides to focus attention on AM.
Several people would have enough information to suspect what had gone down. The fences might blab to save thier own skin. AM might decide to clear his conscience by describing GH to the police.
George is benefitted by accusing AM before AM accuses him. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
"I assure you cries of 'Murder' were common."
Neither of us were residents of 1888 Whitechapel, and as such, I can no more accept your "assurances" that cries of "Murder" were common than you should accept my "assurances" that GH was the ripper. It will be remembered that you didn't claim such cries were "common". You said they were a "nightly occurance". A substantial difference.
"But the theorists need to explain the discrepancies between short and fat and military bearing."
We don't need to do anything of the sort. Conversely, it is encumbent upon you to explain how short, stout men are incapable of having a military appearence.
"The likelihood is that this man was not Stride's killer."
I'd be delighted to knw how you arrived at this conclusion.
"As for D'Onston, I'm not on here arguing for him, so I see no reason to start now at your behest."
I just couldn't engage with the logic that asserts that D'Onston is a better suspect than Hutchinson, that's all. I was interested to hear that logic explained. No antagonism intended.
"I study the evidence of the case free from suspect bias."
As do I. When I first explored Hutchinson's candidacy, I examined every reason possible for giving him a clean bill of health, but I continually hit brick walls.
"As for his alibi, there were other murders he likely provided an alibi for."
Why is that likely? Why? What if the police accepted Hutchinson's version of events?
"Regarding the two witnesses who heard 'Oh Murder', go compare their locations with what they heard and how they heard it. Doesn't add up."
It couldn't "add up" more perfectly. Elizabeth Prater stated that she could here Kelly's movements through the thin partition that seperated their rooms. Lewis occupied the room opposite and could easily have heard Kelly's exclamation through the smashed pane. Easy.
"Tell me about the first 20-something years of his life and the 30 or so to follow. That should give us some idea of his guilt or innocence."
Tom, the fact that there are few extant details concerning GH's life in no way detracts from his candidacy as Jack the Ripper. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 136
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
The suggestion that being paronoid about being seen opposite the court brought the man to the police on the monday is daft.
Says Richard who didn't explore the links I provided in a recent post. Had he read them, he would, undoubtedly, have provided compelling refutation of every suggestion I posited to the effect that the aforementioned theory is not daft. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4301
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Id say that George Hutchinson was a client of Kelly's, and nothing else.
Richard,
"Simply i cannot agree that Gh is at all suspiscious."
Have you actually read his statement, since you apparently have missed all the hundreds of Swiss holes in it? It is dubious and doesn't add up with reason at all. Most of it obviously contains of lies and fabrications.
"The suggestion that being paronoid about being seen opposite the court brought the man to the police on the monday is daft."
No, the conception that he 'cared' enough for Mary Kelly in order to follow and interrupt her with a client (something she certainly wouldn't appreciate), is daft, just as daft as the conception that just because Abberline believed him, we have to believe him. It is so naive that it is beyond any kind of reason.
"if he was worried about being seen why hang around the very centre of Dorset street for a period of time, it seems to me that his loitering and the thought of being seen doing so, had no threat to him, after all he had done nothing wrong and his intentions were honest."
But for heaven's sake, he was seen in the vicinity of an important and spectacular murder scene, and the very same night.
When he was standing there he of course didn't know he did anything that might be suspicious, but at that time he of course didn't know a murder had been committed either. That he found out later and thus probably realised that the police could have more information about the man loitering there than the inquest revealed (which they didn't, though). How on earth are you thinking, Richard? Wake up.
I can't rule him out as Kelly's killer, although I am inclined to focus on the people more close to her, and we don't know how much he knew Kelly or if he really knew her at all. But I can't see why he should be Jack the Ripper, because there is actually nothing that connects him to the other murders.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi,
I Appear to form a line of no defence here.
All I am saying is 'why is it not possible that a person named George Hutchinson relayed to the police on the eve of the 12th a truthful account of the morning of the 9th, which includes his famous description.
Is it not possible that this character in our play, had a knack for observation, and simply told what he saw and what he heard verbally.
Why on earth are we doubting this mans account he was there we were not..
It is up to us to decifer what implications this implies.
I am sorry i am so stubborn on this point, but since Bob Hinton involved us with [ and i will say a excellent book'From Hell' no plug intended] all common sense has flown out of the window.
Are we seriously considering this man known as Gh a liar, a fraud, a murderer, a stalker, a pimp, if so we are light years away from a conclusion to this case.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Disagreement does not imply that i am not 'wide awake' it just gives my opinion.
if one day we can establish the true Identity of Gh[ which to be honest i think is obvious] we may understand that the person himself was simply giving as a witness his recollections [ installed in his memory] of a night which was eventful to him and proberly remained so for the rest of his life.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 514
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Ben and all,
In order to accept Hutchinson as a viable suspect, we must disregard a substantial amount of evidence. As he didn't have his own place, we must do away with the organs the Ripper took from the victims. So, we either have giant rats carrying them off - which I won't waste time discussing, or the Ripper disposing of them. The latter of the two is the most likely, but it has significant problems. Why take them away only to immediately dispose of them? To my mind, the biggest detriment to the case against Hutchinson is that it's not readily apparent that he had medical knowledge or skill. So what do his supporters do? The same as Kosminksi's - conveniently disregard the weighty professional opinions of men like Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown who personally attended to a good portion of the victims and in the mutilations saw medical knowledge. Ben, no offense, but I have the feeling you so readily accept Schwartz's man #1 as the Ripper because he's about the right age for Hutchinson and is behaving in a way that suggests someone of the lower class. To do this, of course, you must ignore the fact that Man #1 was attempting to pull STride into the street, not push her back into the yard, giving her ample opportunity to scream and fight back. Not exactly the Ripper's modus operandi.
In other words, there's plenty to indicate Hutchinson is not a very good suspect - the fact that we know nothing at all about him is what keeps him in the frame as viable. Having said that, if Kelly were not a victim of the Ripper (which I highly doubt), then that's a different matter. Hutchinson would be a very viable suspect, and I'd rate him over Barnett. As the Ripper, though? No way.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 795
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
"Is it not possible that this character in our play, had a knack for observation, and simply told what he saw and what he heard verbally."
He might have had a knack for observation, but what I really find very hard to believe is that he was able to distinguish the color of the handkerchief. In poor light and at some distance I don't think anybody could have actually seen what color it was.
Furthermore, what’s interesting to note is that the statements of all the other witnesses, although much less detailed, did provide clear and good reasons for being where they were and doing what they did at the time of their sightings, whereas Hutchinson’s simply fails in this department.
So, in short, we have a man who seems to have had an interest in MJK, who (following his statements) does a poor job at explaining his presence in close proximity of a murder scene at an hour that might be considered of some importance to the case and who on top of all that (and completely out of balance with the explanation of his presence) provides the police with an uncommonly detailed description of a possible killer – a description that might be regarded to be made up of bits and pieces of descriptions provided by other witnesses.
Not that this means GH was MJK's murderer, but if you ask me, it's reason enough not to be so stubborn about your point of view (if you want to be, I'll let you of course).
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2759
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
I agree with Tom here esp re the taking away of the organs.I agree too about the medical knowledge bit which several doctors who examined the victims decided was the case[not all but several].
Take the example of such suspects as Cutbush and Druitt. Druitt may have had considerable awareness of the anatomy from his family home-
medical talk by his surgeon father as well as access to text etc.
Cutbush was said to have actually had an obsessive interest in" medical texts" and to like cutting out figures from magazines and to have made up various poses with cut outs of half dressed women.
Such "studies" with DIY anatomy kits may have been all that was required to have appeared to have had the medical knowledge some doctors believed was needed.
Richard,
I agree with you regarding Bob Hinton"s
book-a rigorous work with a precise line of inquiry.
But I still cant see Hutchinson as the ripper.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 796
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
"So what do his supporters do? The same as Kosminksi's - conveniently disregard the weighty professional opinions of men like Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown who personally attended to a good portion of the victims and in the mutilations saw medical knowledge."
First of all, I don't know if you're right about Dr. Brown. At least in connection with Eddowes' case he was of the opinion that the murderer didn't even show great anatomical skill. Besides, you disregard the weighty and professional opinions of other doctors like Bond, Sequeira and Saunders.
Furthermore, Richard Chase mutilated in a very similar way to Jack the Ripper's and he had no medical knowledge whatsoever. For example, he took out both kidneys in one case.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
A random thought aimed at no one or everyone:
It's more fashionable and more politically correct on the Casebook to accuse Sir Robert Anderson --the real one-- of lying, than it is to cast aspersions on Hutch.
Sad, really.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 515
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Frank van Oploo writes: First of all, I don't know if you're right about Dr. Brown. At least in connection with Eddowes' case he was of the opinion that the murderer didn't even show great anatomical skill.
Frank, you're by not the first I've seen say that Dr. Brown felt Eddowes' killer had no knowledge or skill. And I'm not sure why that is, considering what he wrote in his post mortem notes. See below.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM DR. BROWN'S POST MORTEM NOTES: I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose.
I should also point out that he originally wrotes: "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable MEDICAL knowledge", but he deleted the word 'medical' before continuing. As for Dr. Bond's 'weighty opinion', I am not disregarding it at all, but I am taking into consideration that the only body he viewed was Mary Kelly's, and one can certainly understand him reaching the conclusion he did in that case. Though, some would disagree in that the way the Ripper removed the heart betrayed some knowledge. And let's not forget that Dr. Phillips, arguably the most experienced of them all, was practically giddy with awe over the Ripper's 'achievements'. Regarding the Richard Chase case, I'm not at all familiar with the details, but it sounds like something I should look into.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Two things,
for the killer to have had medical knowledge or not does not mean Hutch was not lying.
maybe he wasnt there at all
Robert,
I thought both were equally unfashionable
jenni
"I bid him look into the lives of men as though into a mirror"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
