|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 163
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 2:58 pm: | 
|
Poor ole Hutch. I think he is being overanalyzed to death. Maybe attempting to put ourselves in his shoes would help to simplify things. If he were Mary's killer, I absolutely can see no reason for him coming forward. As Howard put it, there was nothing preventing a guilty or non guilty GH from leaving the East End. Apparently he was one of many drifters that lived in the area. He had no wife or children, no job or business that we know of. So, all he had to do was change his name and move on. By the time a description of him would be circulated, he would be long gone. If on the other hand, he was Mary's killer and wanted to throw off suspicion by coming forward, there would be the possibility that one simple misstatement could open the door to a full investigation and lead to having to put his head in a noose.
If on the other hand, he was not Mary's killer but was at Miller's Court for some other reason, i.e., he was a client of Mary, he was Mary's pimp, he intended to rob the Ashtrakan man etc.etc. and he had a fear that he had been seen, he had a real problem on his hands. After reading about the murder in the newspaper, he must have realized how dangerous it would be to be connected to the murder in any way, shape or form. He debates what to do (a simple explanation for why it took him three days to come forward) finally confiding in his friends (leaving out the part where he was up to no good). Their advice is to come forward which is what he does.
He doesn't want to admit to anything that was illegal or arouse more suspicion so he invents or embellishes the story of the Ashtrakan man. I don't think Abberline was a fool and I think he quickly picked up on where GH was coming from. Since Abberline was trying to catch the Ripper, he probably saw no point in trying to pursue GH's misdeeds once he had convinced himself that GH was not Mary's killer. If Abberline believed that the Ashtrakan man was real, he might have allowed for some embellishment knowing that GH was simply trying to deflect suspicion away from himself. He wouldn't want to risk GH becoming defensive because at this point GH seemed to be the best lead that he had.
In summary, we have a scenario where GH was not Mary's killer but was present that night for some reason that he didn't want known. Fearing that he was seen and will somehow be connected with the murder he agonizes over whether it is best to come forward or not. He seeks advice from friends and decides to come forward. He admits his presence at Miller's Court that night but omits his real reason for being there. Abberline understands the situation and believes in the existence of the Ashtrakan man and takes all of GH's embellishments with a grain of salt.
c.d. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Hi,
I really wish all of the casebook were sitting in my Aunts lounge in the early 1970s , and heard the infamous Radio broadcast that i apparently imagined entitled 'The man that saw Jack'
It would then be so much easier to understand why i believe George William Topping Hutchinsons statement.
The man some of us are accusing as a murderer, a stalker, a pimp, a ruffian, was infact a young man of twenty two years old, who at that time was some 6years off marriage, and was a decent human being, who only mentioned the 'Ripper' when the subject cropped up, and he simply stated that he was interviewed by the police as he knew one of the women.
He told his son that his biggest regret was regardless of his efforts in assisting the police nothing became of it'
But he also said without giving a reason that he was paid ' out of police funds' the sum of one hundred shillings'.
Why are we crucifying this man?.
We are simply condeeming him because of his acute observation, something is son confirms.
'If Dad said he saw that, he saw that' sums it all up.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3530
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi All-
Actually..re Bob's post somewhere up the page re. colour in darkness...have spent most of the afternoon working on this...the colour that is least 'seen' at night is Turquoise..-Interesting!
Nats-
As they say you're never more than 9" from a rat in Central London today....What the distance was (or perhaps people had better things to do) in 1888 we'll never know! BUT I'd imagine it was shorter!
Richard-
Quite an image you paint there!!!
"Nunnerisms ??".....take it as a form of flattery!
Suzi |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Dear Richard:
If I am not mistaken,Ivor Edwards has met and talked with this Reg Hutchinson. I'd ask him about what he thinks from their meeting.
"He told his son that his biggest regret was regardless of his efforts in assisting the police nothing became of it"-Mr. Nunweek
I think that the problem many have, not all, aside from Glenn's feelings on how Abberline conducted his interrogation is that it took three days for the man to come forward on behalf of an alleged friend. Anyone like that is usually not that much of a friend..
Going to check out the calendar your daughter is offering on E-bay.... |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 316
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
How,
I don't really lean toward anyone, I don't believe. I think it may have been someone searching for something, the essence of woman or some such thing.That's why a loony seems sort of handy. As to your question: I don't think our fellow was reading a medical book beforehand. I really have no idea if he knew his anatomy. This whole doctor or butcher idea has me puzzled as as we don't and can't (at this time) know that he singled out any organs specifically or everything was just cut/removed randomly just because it was an organ. I think people want to take their suspects and use whatever they construe as evidence to make them work. In my mind, a laborer is a much better suspect than a doctor just because there were so many more of them. I'd say many people in those days knew how to carve up an animal, and a human is just another animal.
Now, if the Lusk letter was real we could talk about a guy who knew his kidneys, but could we really say more than that?
Take care How
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 317
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 6:18 pm: |
|
CD,
You are right, of course. People choose to pick on Hutch because they've got nothing else. I think he would have been a decent guy to grab a pint with. The police believed him and so do I. Was he hiding anything? Who isn't?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 145
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
I think he is being overanalyzed to death.
I don't understand this observation at all. Surely the more we "analyze" a suspect, the greater chance we have of arriving at an informed opinion. Or are you advocating that we only pay scant analysis to ALL suspects.
If he were Mary's killer, I absolutely can see no reason for him coming forward.
Sarah Lewis looked him in the face. She must have done in order to notice his preoccpuation with Miller's Court. Hutchinson did not have the luxury of knowledge that Sarah Lewis had not given a full description of him to the police. What if she knew his name? If that were the case, fleeing would only have prolonged the inevitable. If they knew they had their man, they would have persued him to Perdition's Flames.
We have to take into account what Hutchinson did not know. If we are to act upon your own suggestion and "put ourselves in his shoes", it is essential that we disavow any foreknoweldge of details which WE have come to take for granted.
If, on the other hand, he was Mary's killer and wanted to throw off suspicion by coming forward, there would be the possibility that one simple misstatement could open the door to a full investigation and lead to having to put his head in a noose.
Yes, bit risky, but it still constituted the least risky option. A simple misstatement could lead to trouble, but he had three days in which to concoct a contradiction-free statement.
If he was client of Mary's, he could have 'fessed up to this.
If he was a mugger, he would not have been so astronomically stupid as to mention Mr. Astrachan's expensive-looking accessories.
If he was a pimp, it is extremely likely that others close to Mary were aware of the special role that GH played in her life.
So if Astrachan man was a fabrication, what other realistic options are we left with?
Since Abberline was trying to catch the Ripper, he probably saw no point in trying to pursue GH's misdeeds once he had convinced himself that GH was not Mary's killer.
I can just envisage Abberline pondering to himself: "Yes, this man way be a criminal, but I have bigger fish to fry, so I'll let him off Scott free!". You reinforce your belief that Abberline was no fool, but now you're accusing him of corruption and gross negligence. I think he'd prefer "fool", of the three.
Do I think Abberline was a fool? No. Do I think he was foolish on THAT occasion? Unfathomably so.
Ben |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 164
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
I am beginning to think that it is hard to be objective about Hutchinson because of his close connection to the tragedy of Mary Kelly's death. Maybe putting things into a modern perspective would help. Let me offer this scenario. Put GH in our time. He takes money from a convenience store cash register when the cashier's back is turned. As he leaves the store, he notices a man walking in looking very nervous. The man tries to avoid his gaze. Later GH finds that the owner of the convenience store has been shot and killed. The reported time fits with his leaving the store and the nervous man entering. The news reports that the police are interviewing a woman who was walking by the store and said she saw a man talking to the cashier as GH had done. Now GH is scared. What if the woman is describing him. What should he do? Should he do nothing and hope that the police don't trace him? But if they do and the woman identifies him as the man she saw, he could face the death penalty. Should he come forward and tell the police that he was in the store? That might help make the police think he is innocent. Of course, he doesn't want to tell them that he was there stealing money so he makes up a story that he was in the store buying beer. He also describes the man that he saw entering the store. GH recalls that the man was wearing cowboy boots. The police don't seem to be too impressed with his description of the man. He gets a little nervous and tells them that the man was also wearing a baseball cap and had a tatoo. All fabrication of course but the police think this is a good lead. They thank him and let him go.
I don't think GH was the Ripper. I think that he had to come forward and offer an explantion as to why he was there at Miller's court. He was scared and didn't do a particularly good job of it.
c.d. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Ben,
Hutchinson is the topic on several threads right now. When I stated that he was being overanalyzed to death, I simply meant that with so much back and forth and people trying to make their points that sometimes simple explanations get overlooked. And no, I am not advocating that we only pay scant analysis to ALL suspects. I'm not sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic with that statement.
I think GH would know whether Sarah Lewis knew him by name or not.
Fleeing would only have prolonged the inevitable.
Is it inevitable that all killers are eventually caught? By the time that Sarah Lewis gave her description and a sketch was made and distributed GH could have been long gone.
You say that coming forward was a "bit risky." I think it would have been like walking into a lion's den if he were the Ripper and the police started to consider him a serious supspect.
If he was a client of Mary's, he could have "fessed up" to this. Confess to what? that he had just been with a woman who was found brutally murdered. What a can of worms that would open up! I think it would be much safer to omit that little detail.
I am hardly accusing Abberline of corruption and gross negligence. The police grant immunity to known criminals so that they can get information on criminals who have committed far worse crimes. Abberline needed information from GH. What good would come from arresting GH for some minor crime if it meant the Ripper might escape?
Do I think that he was foolish on THAT occasion. Unfathomably so.
Again let me say, that Abberline was actually there and interviewed GH. His superiors (from what we know) saw nothing that would make them question his judgment.
c.d. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 943
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Maybe Abberline believed him because he had a criminal history that Abberline was aware of. If Abberline knew GH was a pickpocket, a scout for fences, or a forger and had been for years, he would reason that "I know this guy, I even arrested him two or three times. I know what he's capable of and murder/mutilation isn't it. I even have a pretty good idea what he was up to." |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 290
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 4:21 am: |
|
Of the two witnesses who claimed to have seen Kelly take a man to her room that night,Cox seems to be the one who might pose the most danger of recognising that person should she see him again.She describes facial features so she saw him face on.
The man Cox saw was most likely to be an aquaintance than customer.Would she sing if her priority was to earn money,and would he just sit there listening if his money was to be paid for sexual favours?
There is no reason to believe Hutchinson was not an aquaintance, nothing to say he could not have been in the vicinity of Dorset St about midnight with a pot of beer to share.
There would be nothing to stop him leaving no 13 and returning later,many murders,robberies and serious crimes have been commited by offenders who did this.
Believe Hutchiunson to be the midnight visitor,and there is certainly need to come forward and introduce a racially different type of person in the victin's company,and after being seen by two different witnesses at the same crime scene.
Fleeing Whitechapel would have been suspicious,not coming forward dangerous,so facing up and trying to brazen it out the best option,and it worked?(my opinion). |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 4:59 am: |
|
Dear Natalie,
Re your post talking about the rats. In my experience if there are humans or other animals about, rats tend to hide themselves and make sudden raids on food.
I recall walking through Port Louis in Mauritius in 1973 eating an apple. I threw the core into the gutter ( there were no waste bins) and almost before it hit the road a large (cat sized rat) came from nowhere, grabbed the food and dissapered.
If alone they just come out and feast.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3535
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
Dear Bob
I have somewhere in my rather bizarre collection of photographs a picture that Heather and I took in Whitechapel a couple of years ago....Hanbury St...First one dead rat,then 50 yds down another dead rat,then on the corner of Brick lane 2 rats!!!!!They're there!!!!'and without doubt watching us!!!!(Oportunists -rats all!!!!..thats's why they're so 'sucessful!'
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 146
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
|
Dear CD,
My apologies if I came across as sarcastic. I just couldn't sympathise with your position concerning the "overanalysis" of GH, but I appreciate the clarification.
Is it inevitable that all killers are eventually caught? By the time that Sarah Lewis gave her description and a sketch was made and distributed GH could have been long gone.
No, it is not inevitable that all killers are caught. The unnamed ones have a nasty habit of slipping through the net. Hutchinson, however, was oblivious to the fact that they did not have a name.
I simply cannot agree that GH would have departd Whitechapel, as you suggest, before the inquest. Asssuming for a moment that Hutchinson was the ripper, we know that he did not flee in the aftermath of the Eddowes murder, when he was sighted by Lawende. On that occasion, he was actually seen in the company of the victim.
Why didn't he flee? Because fleeing would deprive him of his sordid pleasure. It is generally accepted that the ripper's skill in evading capture can be largely attributed to his intimate knowledge of the Spitalfields locality. If he scarpered, he'd have to aquaint himself with a whole new neighbourhood before his pastime could ever hope to recommnence.
I think it would have been like walking into a lion's den if he were the Ripper and the police started to consider him a serious supspect.
Then why do so many murderers - most recently Ian Huntley - do precisely that?
Imagine you're living in 17th Century Salem, Massachusetts. Imagine you are an old woman who was observed behaving suspiciously in the woods. The most convenient lie she can possibly peddle might run something akin to: "I was suspicious of an an ancient old hag with a black hat and cloak, so I followed her out of interest".
Superfically, you have delivered a real witch into their hands. Nonsense, of course. But the fabrication nonetheless conformed to the collectively perceived image of a witch.
It is not so much that we are foolish in falling for these yarns. We are just infinitely suggestible.
Confess to what? that he had just been with a woman who was found brutally murdered. What a can of worms that would open up!
No, I meant a client-hopeful. Hutchinson provides no credible reason for lotering outside Crossingham's for as long as he did. If he claimed he was waiting for Mr. Astrchan to leave so that he could then use her services, I'd be more inclined to believe him. But he provides no such reason.
What good would come from arresting GH for some minor crime if it meant the Ripper might escape?
What minor crme? Mugging? No - he would not have been so clumsy as to mention the suspect's expensive garments and accessories.
Abberline was actually there and interviewed GH. His superiors (from what we know) saw nothing that would make them question his judgment.
Not true, I'm afraid CD. According to Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson, the only (note the word "only") man to have got a good look at the murderer was a Jewish witness - not GH. They cannot have attached any credence to his statement.
All the best,
Ben |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just catching up here.
Hi Ben,
Finally, we know that the ripper was decribed, invariably, as short and stout, a description applicable to Hutchinson (NOT Stephenson, Tumblety or Maybrick).
I had no idea Maybrick was tall or thin. Could you source this information for me? Thanks.
...bear in mind that it is still relatively easy to distinguish a 50-year-old from a 30-year-old, grey moustache or not.
Depends entirely on who it is and who is doing the distinguishing. In 1880s Whitechapel, an impoverished local man of 30 may have looked 50 to an outsider, while a 50 year-old professional man could have passed for 30 in the eyes of a denizen of the abyss.
Hi Sir Robert,
You were questioning the ear witnesses to the cry of "murder":
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.
To be fair, I don't think anyone has claimed that blood curdling screams of "Murder!!!" (with three exclamation marks  ) were heard on a regular basis.
And I don't think the witnesses were alone in describing the cry as nothing unusual in an area where thousands lived liked sardines in thin-walled dwellings.
If the women had heard a truly 'blood curdling' scream, of the variety that indicated something dreadful was occurring, they may have failed to act immediately out of fear for their own safety (and who could later have blamed them?). But I don't imagine they would have slept soundly and forgotten all about such a sound by daybreak, only to recall it when the body was finally discovered late morning.
And if a witness had to tell a lie about cries of "Oh murder!" being heard all the time (which presumably could have been contradicted by any of their near neighbours), in order to justify their failure to act, why mention hearing it at all?
It is the nature of the cry (not the volume or the words, but some real sense of panic or horror in the voice) that I believe would have alerted experienced local ears to the real threat of some violent act being committed (regardless of how they would have reacted to it at the time), as distinct from a woman stubbing her toe or dropping her meat pie in a mucky gutter.
I don't see any evidence that what the witnesses heard fell into the former category. Even at the height of the ripper scare, when everyone was waiting for him to strike again, they appeared to have no inkling whatsoever of what that cry would represent within a few hours - a grim overture to Jack's work that night.
Hi Mike,
Now, if you want to tie a certain 'Mr. Lusk' letter to Jack and then say it proves he knew a kidney from a kumquat, well... you've got to tie that letter to him don't you.
And:
Now, if the Lusk letter was real we could talk about a guy who knew his kidneys, but could we really say more than that?
We don't even need to say that much. Jack only had to hear what the rest of the world was talking about in early October - that a kidney was taken from Eddowes - to know what he had in front of him, if he wanted to pop it in the pan or in the post.
In fact, if the Lusk letter wasn't real, we could really talk about a guy who knew his kidneys - the hoaxer. Or were most women of a certain age on a mortuary slab likely to have kidneys in similar condition to how Eddowes's were reported?
From a medically/surgically trained Jack's point of view, wouldn't he have gone in from the back if his purpose was to bag a kidney in as short a time as possible? Or would it have given the game away if he had been too good at it?
On the one hand I don't think there have been too many serial killers whose methods directly and obviously reflect their main occupation (Sickert didn't paint people to death, Goldfinger-like; Chapman didn't tuppenny-all-off or short-back-and-sides his customers into oblivion; Druitt didn't knock 'em dead with a cricket ball).
On the other, Dr Shipman did use his professional skills to give his patients a taste of his own medicine. So it's hard to be dogmatic. But I don't really see why Jack, as a rare, but certainly far from unique, mutilating, organ-taking serial killer, has to have been any more experienced in cutting up God's creatures than your average Victorian male with an interest in the female body that ranges from healthy to terminal.
Hi All,
Regarding Hutch and the Red Hanky, I am in two minds. Either way it was a detail too far, which tells us a little or a lot.
If he couldn't have judged whether it was red or not, he may have guessed the colour on the basis that he could tell it wasn't white, or thought red added drama. If a red hanky could be a token given to a prostitute by a prospective customer to seal a deal, he may have assumed the colour (or even knew it, if he also knew the customer, or had begun to 'take care' of Mary's business interests now Joe wasn't around all the time).
Or Hutch could have invented this detail from whole red cloth. But was it a white lie told to embroider some very black ones, or was it far less sinister than that?
If a red hanky had been found in Mary's room and held back from the press it could have been good news for an innocent Hutch, confirming this detail of his account. Would a guilty man have come forward and introduced the subject of the red hanky, if his knowledge of it could have incriminated him?
Lots to think about here. But nothing much on which to form any hard and fast conclusions. Now there's a surprise.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2774
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Dear Bob and Suzi---
Maybe Jack thought of himself as the Pied Piper of Whitechapel!
Caz,
Ever heard the story of Marguerite Duplessis and her red and white camelias?Could
there have been some sort of red/white hanky signalling going on perhaps? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3548
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Nats....
Er No.......... sounds fun though!
Caz
Mega post ! going to read it tomorrow
Suzi xx! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3549
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Ah!!!!! Traviata!!!!!!!!! the richest courtesan in Paris!!!!!!! GOT IT!!!!!...
prefer Mozart myself but! |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 147
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I had no idea Maybrick was tall or thin. Could you source this information for me?
While I can claim no knowledge of Maybrick's height, we can safely rule out "stoutness" on the grounds that we have pictorial evidence to prove otherwise. Certainly, one image wouldn't be sufficient to gauge his weight either way, but we don't have one image. We have at least three - none of which reveal a fluctuating weight.
I consider it extremely unlikely that a 50-year-old in 1888 would appear 20 years younger. Compare the number of witnesses who claimed to have observed a suspect of 30 years (or thereabouts) with those who described a middle-aged man. Elizabeth Long only saw the man's back - worthless - while William Marshall did not register the man's face. Was nt 30 considered "middle-aged" in 1888 anyway?
I just can't accept that so many witnesses would confound a 50-year-old with a 30-year-old. Remember, these witnesses included "professional men" as well as locals.
Would a guilty man have come forward and introduced the subject of the red hanky, if his knowledge of it could have incriminated him?
How could such a detail have incriminated him?
Happy new year to all,
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on January 03, 2006) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 9:05 am: |
|
Tom --
"Regarding the third point, who's to say he walked 14 miles in the rain?"
Robert Linford was kind enough to point me in the direction of
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html
Mary Jane Kelly
8 November
Thursday 46.3 degrees 36.2 degrees - - Dull cold day; rain at night
9 November
Friday 46.3 degrees 38.9 degrees - - Wet till 11A.M, then overcast
Looks like it rained throughout GH's 14 mile walk.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 166
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
Let me jump in here to say again that everyone needs to be aware of the newly discovered security flaw in Microsoft Windows. The initial warning by security experts was pretty severe. Now they are saying that it could be even worse than what was first predicted. So be very careful and see the details in my posting on the message boards under topics.
c.d. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 167
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Greetings to all,
I think that Abberline had two tasks before him. He had to determine whether Hutchinson killed Mary or was connected in any way with her murder. He also had to determine whether Hutchinson could provide any meaningful information which might help him catch the Ripper. Could our criticism of Abberline's judgment be the result of inextricably connecting these two tasks whereas Abberline might have addressed them one after the other? Once he assured himself that Hutchinson was not her killer or connected to the crime, he was then free to use any information that Hutchinson provided. And if he took it with a grain of salt, what did he have to lose? We look at Hutchinson's disengenuous story and immediately become suspicious. But if Abberline felt confident Hutchinson was scared of being considered a Ripper suspect and was simply concocting elements of a story to account for his being present that night, he might have had a perspective on GH's story that we do not.
c.d. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 149
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
He had to determine whether Hutchinson killed Mary or was connected in any way with her murder.
Maybe he never considered this possibility?
The press had been openly disparaging about police effort to apprehend the murderer, and the beleagured, exhausted Inspector Abberline saw in Hutchinson an ray of hope - an oppotunity to quell the cynicism of his critics.
You say that "we" become immediately suspicious when perusing Hutchinson's statement, but we didn't - not for 100 years!
(Message edited by BenH on January 05, 2006) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4307
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 4:20 pm: |
|
"Hutchinson provides no credible reason for lotering outside Crossingham's for as long as he did. If he claimed he was waiting for Mr. Astrchan to leave so that he could then use her services, I'd be more inclined to believe him. But he provides no such reason."
"We have to take into account what Hutchinson did not know. If we are to act upon your own suggestion and "put ourselves in his shoes", it is essential that we disavow any foreknoweldge of details which WE have come to take for granted."
A lot of good points by Ben Holme here and I agree with them.
Hutchinson had plenty of time to come forward with his information but didn't do so until it was known that one of the witneses had seen a man hanging around in the vicinity of the crime scene for a period of time. Hutchinson - naturally - recognised himself in this and could NOT know if the police had more information about this man (it is a known approach to withold some information of that kind to the public and papers in order not to jeopardise the investigation). Conclusively, he must have felt it most secure to come forward himself - if the police would have been on the trail of him and in the end picked him up, that would have put him in a way more incriminating situation.
By coming forward himself, he definitely minimized his risks and in addition came through as a genuine person who on his own free will wanted to deliver information to the police. Not to mention delivering a suspect to them, in their most crucial hour of need!
Of course his plan worked!
Why he hung around outside Crossingham's we will never know, and we must face the reality that he didn't necessarily do anything incriminating. What made it suspicious was that he happened to stand there at the time of a gruesome murder was committed nearby, and naturally he realised this in retrospect when he learned about it!
AS for the reasons to doubt Hutchinson, it is NOT because of any ambition to destroy his reputation, but because of that several points in his statements do not hang together!
We are really not given a valid reason for why Hutchinson paid any attention or felt any fear for Mary in the first place, being in this Astrakhan man's company! And especially since Hutchinson himself admits, that she seems to have felt quite at ease with her male companion and not frightened at all!
Hutchinson said that he followed Mary Kelly and the man and stood close enough to look the man stern in the eye and to such an extent that even the man himself noticed it and tried to hide himself.
Now, in this passage there is not a word about Mary Kelly's reaction to Hucthinson's behaviour. Judging from other witnesses'comments, Mary kelly - as most street prostitutes - was a woman who could take care of herself, or believed she could, and if she and Hutchinson really were that close, why would he be so astonished by the fact that she wanders off with a client, regardless of how he looked? And why didn't Mary Kelly react to Hutchinson's interference when she seems to have picked up a client that looked quite wealthy and respectable? Would she have approved of such rather rude and annoying interruptions, when she could see herself earning some good money? I would think not, and not would any other woman in her position.
It is amazing that Abberline & Co never bothered to ask Hutchinson about these discrepancies and odd circumstances in his statements, but it is apparent that the latter had totally paralysed the good detectves with his intriguing suspect, and there is no doubt that the police were desperate at this time for a suspect and to deliver some results. I believe they threw the discrepancies in Hutchinson's statement aside and took the chance that he was telling the truth. In any case, they couldn't risk dismissing a man gave them such a detailed description of a possible suspect - if that would have been public knowledge, the police would have had to face even more ridicule in the papers and possibly also some heads would roll. They had no choice but to take Hutchinson seriously and in doing this, they subjected themselves to grave mishandling of the case.
It is more than clear from Abberline's report that he personally believed Hutchinson was a genuine witness and that he believed him and this only shows that Abberline judgements weren't tip top - just like when he thought that Klosowski was the Ripper (because if you were evil enough to posion your wives, then you must also be the Ripper).
Abberline and the police made several bad judgements through the Ripper case - one of the worst being letting Michael Kidney off the hook in the Stride murder and not even questioning him more closely as a possible suspect, in spite of his strange behaviour at the inquest and the information about his character from other witnesses or Stride herself. Instead of taking a closer look at him, he only treats him as an ordinary witness on the side and lets him disappear into the shadows after the inquest.
Abberline was probably street-smart and had good knowledge of the area, but he was no more fitted than any of his contemporaries to be in charge of a complex serial killer investigation on the ground, nor does interrogations seems to have been his strongest point - and certainly not his judge of character. So the fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson certainly do not in any way strengthen Hucthinson's case - on the contrary.
Richard,
Let me get this straight... do you mean, that just because this guy appeared in a radio show, we automatically have to believe him and consider him a 'good bloke'?
All the best}
(Message edited by Glenna on January 05, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 169
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Hey Ben,
The idea that Abberline never considered the possibility that Hutchinson might have been Mary's killer or somehow involved in her death is inconceivable to me. It would be above and beyond gross incompetence. Just my opinion.
c.d. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 170
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
How do we know what Hutchinson was asked or not asked by Abberline?
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4308
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 2:54 am: |
|
c.d.,
Abberline sent the original statement to his superiors together with a report about the meeting with Hutchinson - and those internal reports are pretty much complete.
If Abberline had asked Hutchinson about these clarifications it would have been added in there, as an explanation to those who read the statement. But there is nothing; all he does is to refer to the statement and say that he believes Hutchinson. There is not one single sign of critical approach or reservation in Abberline's comments where there should have been.
What is even more astounding is that no one (like Swanson etc) seems to have asked for these clarifications either.
"The idea that Abberline never considered the possibility that Hutchinson might have been Mary's killer or somehow involved in her death is inconceivable to me. It would be above and beyond gross incompetence. Just my opinion."
And still that seems to be the case. The official internal police communications are pretty much complete, and it is pointless to see things in them that aren't there. And they show no signs of such considerations.
The handling of Hutchinson as a witness is one of the sloppiest pieces of police work I have ever seen, although - as I've said earlier - it is not especially singular or odd for its time.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 801
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 5:23 am: |
|
Hi CD,
“And if he took it with a grain of salt, what did he have to lose?”
OK, so if I understand you correctly you basically say that Abberline saw through GH’s alleged fabrications, believed that GH was not MJK’s murderer and that he would just take his story with a grain of salt.
To use Caz’ words on another thread: if GH was up to no good that night, I wouldn't expect him to be the sort of chap who told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, that makes me wonder: how was Abberline to know for sure which parts of his account and description were true?
And if he didn’t know, how could he know who or what to look for and where? If I were in Abberline’s shoes, I would have been interested in knowing the true parts, so that I could spend my valuable time only on those parts. So, I would have put some pressure on him in order to get to the truth instead of just taking his story with a grain of salt.
Another thing that would strike me as very odd if your scenario were true is that Abberline didn’t report anything about not completely believing his statement in his report of 12 November. What would be the purpose of leaving important stuff like that out of that report?
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: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 6:08 am: |
|
Dear Frank,
To answer your last point, I believe that Abberline didn’t put anything in writing about his suspicions as he knew it would probably be plastered all over the newspapers the following day. Look what happened to Schwartz whom the police were trying to keep to themselves.
I believe that Abberline reported verbally to Warren’s successor Monro, that something was not quite right with GH’s statement. This verbal communication would then be put into an eyes-only memo to be circulated only to the very top police officials.
Now I should emphasise that this is only a hunch I have – I have nothing concrete to back it up, however it would explain two strange events.
On the 2nd December Monro was interviewed by G R Sims who reported:
“It would be strange if the accession of Mr Monro to power were to be signalised by such a universally popular achievement as the arrest of Jack the Ripper. From such information which has reached me, I venture to prophesy that such will be the case.”
Now this is only five days after Monro officially took over the job (although in fact he had physically taken over much sooner). What on earth could Monro know that would make the arrest of JTR a possibility after so many failures?
Could it possibly be that his could friend Abberline had tipped him the wink that he might have a good strong lead?
The second strange occurrence is that in spite of the fact that Astrakhan man was the best viewing of the best possible suspect, both Anderson and later McNaghten completely dismiss George Hutchinson as a witness. Why? Was it because they had been informed that there was something funny with GH’s tale?
Bob |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 8:33 am: |
|
I think there is a possibility that GH could have been up to no good without being the Ripper. Abberline was, if nothing else, streetwise and experienced in how garden variety crime worked.
He may have been perfectly aware of what GH was up to, but Abberline had other fish to fry and couldn't afford to alienate GH over some petty crime.
I suppose I have been influenced by the Michael Caine movie in which Caine/Abberline says, "I know what a mucher is, a mucher is someone who rolls drunks." Not that GH was necessarily a mucher, but it illustrates Abberline's street knowledge.
(Message edited by diana on January 06, 2006) |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 174
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. When I stated that Abberline probably took GH's statement with a grain of salt, I was referring to GH's desription of the Ashtrakan man. Abberline might have believed in his existence but still could have had reservations about the description itself. It would have been foolish for Abberline to accept GH's story as a whole without some sort of investigation.
Glenn,
We know that Abberline reached a conclusion as to the truthfullness of GH's story. Isn't it reasonable to assume that he went through some sort of process to arrive at that conclusion? As for Abberline's superiors, are we to assume that they read a report from Abberline himself which indicated that there existed a witness who had given a detailed description of a man who could very well have been the Ripper and that they simply tossed the report into their out box with no comment or no follow up? Isn't it reasonable to believe that they would have discussed the report among themselves and that they would have wanted to talk to Abberline about it and maybe even interview GH themselves?
What about the Sergeant who was present when Abberline intervieved GH? Would Abberline have asked his opinion on GH's story? Would the two PC's who accompanied Abberline and GH in looking for the Ashtrakan man have ventured an opinion? Would Abberline have talked to his friends on the force about GH? In other words, was there not one single person who expressed doubts about GH's story to Abberline? I don't think that he had a reputation for being bullheaded or an egomaniac. Would he have absolutely refused to reconsider his position? Even if Abberline accepted GH's story "in the heat of battle", would Abberline ever thought to question what took place weeks or months down the road?
I know I have a lot of assumptions here that can't be proved from the evidence but I think that sometimes you have to consider assumptions if they appear to be at all reasonable. I think this is one of those times.
c.d. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Couldn't Hutch have admitted, off the record, to being up to no good that night? I can't believe he wasn't asked to explain why he was hanging around the court and why he simply went on his way after 45 minutes.
If his answer involved some sort of criminal activity, for which he genuinely feared prosecution, perhaps this added to a general feeling that he had risked much by 'doing the right thing' and coming forward with his information - even if he had gone over the top with the details.
I'm still very sceptical that a serial killer who could do what was done to Mary would feel the remotest urge to face the authorities soon afterwards with an account of his loitering that might require some sort of 'confession' to a lesser crime to get him off the biggest hook of all.
Like Peter Sutcliffe, Jack could have been caught by the cops almost by accident with a bit of bad luck and judgement. But I can't see either walking towards the hook by choice.
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 175
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I had the same thought about some type of off the record admission by GH. If so, it would certainly put Abberline's actions in a different light.
c.d. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 151
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Some interesting thoughts here.
Glenn's "they couldn't risk dismissing a man gave them such a detailed description of a possible suspect - if that would have been public knowledge, the police would have had to face even more ridicule in the papers and possibly also some heads would roll." struck me as particularly astute observation, and one which I hadn't considered.
David Mamet, the noted American playwright, screenwriter and director, whose writings have proved a constant source of inspiration, imparted the following observations:
All of us have had the experience of watching television and hearing the announcer say: "The assailant, twice convicted of aggravated assault, was serving a life sentence for manslaughter at the time of his escape. When the police engaged him in the gun battle, he turned his weapon on his hostages and opened fire". And as the announcer speaks, we see on the scren a photo of an intense, bearded man, and we say to ourselves, "Well of course that man is a criminal. How could anyone fail to notice it! Every line in his face proclaims him a depraved villain.
And, as we so muse, the announcer continues: "The photo you see depicts the heroic clergyman who dashed from the crowd, subdued the gunman, and saved the lives of all the hostages." And then "Oh", you say to yourself. "Oh I see it now. Of course. Look at that determination. Look at that simple, steady resolve - obviously the face of a hero. Anyone can see it".
You've done it. I've done it. We've all done it. It is not that we are stupid, but we are suggestible".
The above from his excellent book: "True and False: Heresy and Commonse Sense for the Actor".
Hutchinson might be considered an inversion of Mamet's "heroic clergyman" example. When placed in the context of a witness-approaching-police scenario, the fomer comes across as the very embodiment of "simple, steady resolve" - an honest worker, eager to lend assistance. This exterior not only duped Abberline, but legions of researchers...for over a century.
Think about it; for 100 years, we acknowledged Hutchinson the witness as a minor player in the drama, never considering him in any other light. It took but one person to analyse the situation differently for the floodgates to open, paving the way a mammoth reassessment of the Spitalfields labourer.
Nowadays, we say "Of course his statement is true. Anyone can see it! And Abberline, who was amzingly brilliant, MUST have smelled a rat, as a consequence of which he MUST have checked Hutchinson out...so GH CAN'T have been the Ripper".
Excrement.
It something is so obvious, why did we miss it for 100 years? Answer: because we are not infallible, and because we are no less suggestible than Abberline proved himself to have been on 12th November 1888.
Years later, he fell into the same unfortunate trap. Confronted with a man whose history of sadistic murder, sinister countenance, intense eyes and eccentric moustache conformed precisely with Abberline's non-irrational preconceptions of what a murderer might be like, he leaped to the conclusion that this soon-to-executed weirdo - Severin Klosowski - might be Jack the Ripper.
Entrenched in his zealous conjecturings concerning this new suspect, he was clumsily dismissive of numerous important factors which detracted from Klosowski's candidacy as JTR. When attempting to reconcile the obvious discrepencies in M.O. - poisoning wives versus ripping prostitutes etc - he opined that he could not see why Klosowski could not have done both.
"Ouch" we say to ourselves with the comfort afforded us by hindsight, "That's just silly".
Rather than placing Abberline and others on an imaginary pedestal, why not accept that he - like all human beings - was susceptible to the powers of preconception and suggestibility.
Best Regards,
Ben.
P.S. Klosowski's appearance does not remotely tally with any witness description, with one notable exception...you guessed it! |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 176
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Is it your belief that Abberline acted solely on his own in this matter and that he had no input from anyone else? Do you think that he would have discussed it with others?
c.d. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 153
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Yes, I do believe Abberline received imput from others, the majority of whom were equally enthusiastic about this promising new lead. After all, Hutchinson's statement is superficially "corroborated" by Sarah Lewis, so he can't have been a publicity-seeker.
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on January 06, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 154
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 8:31 pm: |
|
I wrote:
Nowadays, we say "Of course his statement is true. Anyone can see it!
But I meant: "Nowadays, we say "Of course his statement is UNtrue. Anyone can see it! |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 802
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 6:26 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your response.
"To answer your last point, I believe that Abberline didn’t put anything in writing about his suspicions as he knew it would probably be plastered all over the newspapers the following day. Look what happened to Schwartz whom the police were trying to keep to themselves."
This is clearly something worth considering, certainly in light of the 2 strange events you mentioned. However, wasn't it a newspaper man who got wind of Schwartz' visit to the police that resulted in his account appearing in the newspapers - regardless of what was being entrusted to paper by the police?
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: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Dear Frank,
True but where did the newspaperman get the info from? A friendly local bobby with access to the files and a thirst?
Bob |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4309
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Bob,
We are talking of internal police communications here, meant for people like Swanson or the Home Office and often classified. Why would the info in those leak to the papers? Among those kind of documents we have other discussions that might have been just as sensitive but are not 'censored' in any way.
I wish people would stop look for things that aren't there. It is quite clear from Abberline's comments that he believed Hutchinson and that he seems to have had no reservations whatsoever. Let's face it, he was naive and witness interrogations was not the strong point of any police force in 1888, and not just in London.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Let me ask you the same question that I asked Ben. Do you think everyone at Scotland Yard was naive about the whole GH matter? Surely Abberline was not operating in a vacuum.
c.d. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
|
"Let's face it, he was naive "
An absurd statement...the man spent 14 years in Whitechapel...not to mention his work against the Fenians. He was very much a man of the world, and with so many police files and dockets missing, it's just ridiculous to be so dismissive.
There is a Swanson memo, the date of which I don't recall, that states the police DETAINED 80 people after the Double Event, and investigated the MOVEMENTS that night of over 300 more. A little short of 1000 DOCKETS were created. Sure sounds to me like these folks were digging into peoples' stories.
Guess what ? The dockets are all missing. So what are we to conclude vis a vis police thoroughness in checking alibis and potential leads ? I'd say the prima facie evidence is that they wore through a lot of shoe leather, but we have no idea why they made specific conclusions with respect to specific witnesses and suspects. And we never will, unless some treasure trove of Met archives is uncovered.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 181
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Very well put, Sir Robert. Abberline was hardly a man who could be called naive. As I stated above, while I am willing to believe that Abberline might have been initially misled by GH, he did not operate in a vacuum and I simply can't believe that all of Scotland Yard followed suit.
c.d. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Howard
You wrote
"it took three days for the man[Hutchinson] to come forward on behalf of an alleged friend. Anyone like that is usually not that much of a friend."
We dont know when GH actually found out that Kelly was murdered. From Hutchinson's statement he does say he contacted a police constable on the Sunday. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Dear Bob,
You write:
"GH was in the proximity and at the approximate time of one of the murders. No other suspect can claim this!"
Im sure you mean GH is the only "named latter day suspect" at the proximity of a Ripper murder. As you know, he was never suspected by contemporary policemen, and has only recently been added as a modern suspect.
I suggest far stronger suspects are the ones described by Lawende, Long and Schwartz. |
HRAK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
I have my own particular bias with regard to JTR which colours my thinking about characters like Hutchinson (GH).
Straight off, I do not think GH is JTR.
However, I do think GH's statement is bunkum in content and timing. Plenty of others hereabouts have argued the points where the statement just doesn't ring true.
If one accepts that GH's statement is hard to believe, the question arises, "Why in blazes did he turn up to make it WHEN he did?"
The inquest wraps up on 12 Nov. with the evidence presented in the newspapers on 13 Nov. and GH strolls into Commercial St. nick that day to give a detailed description of a Jewish charicature entering Mary's abode at a time late enough that Mrs Cox's blotchy-faced man is assumed to have come and gone, yet early enough to fit with the (very) broad range of estimates for time of death.
I said above that I am biased. Here it is. Hutchinson may or may not have been the man seen by Sarah Lewis, but I think GH may have been "persuaded" to give his statement. The sort of "offer you cannot refuse" persuasion practised by someone who is either a serious criminal, or a senior policeman.
Richard posted: "But he also said without giving a reason that he was paid ' out of police funds' the sum of one hundred shillings'."
Five pounds was a powerful sum in 1888. Why, oh why, oh why would police pay GH this amount for turning up after the inquest with a statement that led them, ultimately, nowhere?
However, I can readily accept that a policeman may indeed have paid GH for his story.
That Abberline hastily accepted GH's story is a deep mystery, unless one is willing to accept that (a) Abberline suspected JTR was indeed Jewish, so the charicature helped reinforce a prejudice, or (b) Abberline really wanted someone, anyone, other than the blotchy-faced man, because without GH's statement, the blotchy-faced man would have been front and centre of the investigation.
(To draw the line from A to B, there is a thread about Cutbush discussing his reddened face, and Abberline may just have been aware of Exec.Supt. Charles Cutbush's nephew.)
Also of interest in this regard is this piece from Mrs Cox's inquest testimony re blotchy-faced man:
[Coroner] Did his boots sound as if the heels were heavy ? - There was no sound as he went up the court.
[Coroner] Then you think that his boots were down at heels ? - He made no noise. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Glen
We do not know exactly what Abberline asked Hutchinson. All we have is a copy of his final signed statement of what GH witnessed that night. Even the Romford story is only discussed in terms of Hutchinson's chat with Kelly.
Of course we would all wish the statement to contain more details. This does not mean those discrpencies/details of Hutchinson's story were never inquired about by Abberline. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 12:00 am: |
|
Could it be possible that George Hutchinson was Jack The Ripper's accomplice? Apparently, his son, Reg, stated that his Dad received 100 pounds for his information. Maybe the reward for Jack was finally high enough to lure Hutch from under Jack's wing. He could have been outside on that night waiting for Jack to finish and holding a clean smock for Jack to cover his blood spattered clothing, and to watch for anyone who might enter the court. Since Sarah Lewis saw a man at 2:30 am, who was probably Hutch, standing around in the court, that is why Hutch knew he had to go to the fuzz and turn Jack in and collect the reward for Jack's capture. This would also be an extremely good reason why Abberline believed him - because maybe Hutch admitted only to Abberline that he was Jack's accomplice and wanted not only the reward but immunity for his statement. Just a thought. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 3:18 am: |
|
Ben
I think GH would know how good a look Lewis had got of him. From all indications it was not a detailed sighting. She was after all, only walking past GH, she was not studying him.
Assuming(for arguements sake) GH was the killer.
I honestly cannot see GH coming forward to police in order to give himself an excuse for being there. Other witnesses got a far better sighting of a suspect, not one of whom came forward to give a statement such as Hutchinsons. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Thanks to you and Robert Linford for that link. What hit me straight away were the phases of the moon on each of the nights in question: thin crescents all of them!! Has this been remarked upon before? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
