|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |       |
Hi all
Well re George's 'statements' all we actually have here [apart from Sarah Lewis saying that she saw a man 'lurking' outside Miller's Court] ..is the statement of George himself ...and I seem to recall that he changed that statement between the police and the press...the description becoming a deal more elaborate when offered to the gentlemen of the press.
Somehow I believe that GH did meet Mary..on her own of course and then the 6d episode occurred , there is a slight problem here about the next ten minutes but the man,shoulder tapping,comfortable etc etc is all from George...no one else!
OK GH may have been lurking opposite Millers Court for many reasons and having been seen by Sarah Lewis thought he'd better fatten his story out a bit.
Just a thought(s)
Cheers
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 168
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 2:07 am: | |
Hi all,
Dan, Harry, let me clear this up, perhaps I was a little aggressive in my post above, however...... I am constantly amazed at the way some contributors present certain theories, that is, as though they are well established to be true. By all means let us theorise and have worthwhile exchanges regarding the provenance of various information. Hell, the Casebook would be pretty boring if we didn't. But let all of the views be given due attention. I've been a member of the site for about six months and I can tell you, if you were to read the vast majority of the info here regarding GH you would believe that it had been established beyond doubt that he fabricated, at the very least, the majority of his statement. All I am saying is there is actually nothing in his statement to the Police which can be proven incorrect on the basis of fact. The fact that he elaborates too much on certain details, acts suspiciously in loitering around Dorset St, tells different details to the press, and doesn't make his statement for three days are all points of interest and deserve to be discussed. They are at best however circumstantial pieces of evidence against the provenance of GH's statement, they do not prove it to be a lie. The only sort of thing that could prove his statement untrue would be some established fact which clearly contradicted his version of events.
Dan I respect your opinion and can see the merits of your approach, obviously what we are doing here is to question all of the points of the case. I would say however, if we followed your approach we would have very few facts to go on. I prefer the old concept innocent until proven guilty. We can no more prove GH's statement than we can disprove it. Do I believe 100% of what he said? Probably not. Could he have made it all up? It's one of many possibilities. Is it possible that he actually witnessed something that night and simply added a few details of his own? Absolutely. Does that mean we should disregard him completely? I see no reason to disregard his statements any more than most others in this case.
Scotty. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
You wrote:
"I would say however, if we followed your approach we would have very few facts to go on."
You say that like it's a bad thing. I think it's just a way of trying to be honest with ourselves.
I agree with you that it's not proven that Hutchinson was lying or so forth, but then, based upon what we now know about the reliability of witness testimony and so forth, he is at the very least describing something that sounds like it doesn't reflect reality. Whether it is someone who thinks he remembers details that he isn't likely to have been able to for whatever reason (for example, that the details he reports seeing that night were things he saw in daylight later when he thought he saw the same person again, which could be someone completely different or may have been the same guy, assuming that guy ever existed) or whether he was purposefully giving false information for a variety of possible reasons is unknown.
There's a sliding scale here. People saying he was obviously Mary Jane Kelly's pimp have jumped from looking at possible flaws in his testimony to a possible but wholly unsupported assumption. But for you to say that what he says was true until proven otherwise is to do the same thing, just in the other direction. Of course you've backed off of that position, so no big deal.
"I see no reason to disregard his statements any more than most others in this case."
I do. I don't consider the other witness as totally truthful (reporting what they saw and only what they saw) and reliable (having seen something actually relevant to the case) either, but Hutchinson stands out as saying something that sounds a significantly less reliable than the others.
Add in to that that statements by police officials years later (which I also not necessarily reliable, but it's a weighing of sources thing) that the only person to get a good look at the killer was Jewish, while Hutchinson describes an extremely detailed look at someone based upon timing would have a great chance of being the killer and wasn't himself Jewish. For whatever reason Hutchinson also apparently was not considered a reliable suspect by the officials involved in the case after they had time to reflect upon it.
Granted, all these are indicators, not facts, but we have good indicators that Hutchinson's testimony isn't reliable.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi all!!!! again!
Dan-
Whatever George said or didn't say it was recorded as his 'statement' by the police to the delight of us readers! ..Hopefully we all have seen through this delightful description as a wonderful 'painting' rather than a genuine 'cove'.
Whether hutch was a pimp to mary or whoever always seems like a genuinely good prospect.....someone had to and probably did do it!
As I recall saying maybe not on this one id that george probably met 'the murdered woman' and the 6d episode happened but that was probably it!...His lurking is something else again!!1
Cant trust old GH I think although he has to come up with a damn good one for me to let him out of the No 1 slot!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
I still can"t see why Hutchinson couldnt have been telling the truth.
Dont forget these murders had caused a world-wide sensation by the time Mary Kelly was killed.
Numbers of people would have hesitated about going to the police in those circumstances.They didnt want this maniac after them after all.Or the police arresting them "on suspicion" or crowds of people chasing after them with sticks as happened with one or two other suspects.
I admit that Hutchinson "could" have been after the reward money simply.But it was a risky tactic in the circumstances of the time in November and one he would have realised was fraught with danger.Maybe he was a gambler!
But seriously why cite the press all the time?
Anyone would think they stuck rigorously to the truth.Not so.Not so.Journalists then as now were just as capable of "invention" as you are claiming Hutchinson to be.If they could "embroider" a good story they would have you can be sure.
Hutchinsons "man" was probably one of the very toffs that this JtR story has been associated with from the very beginning.Which one is anyone"s guess but I bet there were more people who knew of him/them than Abberline and George Hutchinson.I think we"ve got to get real over this.JtR could have been a local man or he could have been one of those top hatted opium addicted syphilitic decadents who frequented Whitechapel in search of "kicks". |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi Nats
I think I agree with you that GH was talking the truth to a point!..Honestly I agree that he met 'the murdered woman 'etc etc and the 6d bit and maybe even the man coming the other way the arm on the shoulder etc etc all this lets face it is lovely and despite all its 'romance' has a certain credence...maybe this man was 'noticable' enough for GH to turn and follow Mary with this character and maybe 'lurk' for a while but for what reason I cannot be sure...I cannot be sure EVER that GH and Mary had no 'history' but that's just me!
Cheers
Suzi x
Have a look at 'Why I dont think Joe.... 'on Suspects |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hello Harry, you said..
"I have yet to see in any memoirs from officers on the case, any real attempt to explain what they believed to be the truth about Hutchinson."
The only memoir I am aware of that includes mention of Hutch' is that of Walter Dew, he didn't believe Hutchinson's story. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into any great detail as to why, but he also didn't believe Mrs Maxwell either..
" If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation seeker - one of those women who live for the limelight - it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent." p.153
Dew repeats what we know about Hutchinson & his 'toff' but declairs..
" ..and I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs Maxwell and George Hutchinson were wrong."
Dew compares Mrs Maxwell's story with the medical evidence as to time of death and concludes that she was mistaken.
"And if Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchinson erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view" p.154
Dew doesn't go into any details but concludes that in his opinion the last man to see MJK alive was the beer drinker in the billycock hat.
Regards, Jon |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Suzi yes maybe!certainly its odd to be hanging round her room like that!
Jon I have read this of Dew"s too but wonder if he was all that reliable.It seems he may have "planted" some evidence against Crippen.I would need to know more than just a TV doc a few weeks ago but I"ve read that he was a bit out about who actually went to the police station after the body of MJK was discovered too-and a few other things about how reliable his memory was writing 50 years after these events.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Nats
POOR OLD CRIPPEN as my old mum used to say...cant help that think that old Mrs C may have pushed me over the edge too!
Cant help that think that Mr Dew did some embroidery here too!.hmmmm
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
"I have read this of Dew"s too but wonder if he was all that reliable."
Compared to what?.
On the one hand we have sorely inadequate police files, newspaper accounts written by liars (according to some) and memoirs written by senile officials full of self importance.
(not your opinions, I know)
As with all other memoirs we have to be selective in what we believe. Dew made numerous minor errors in his recollections, as do all the other officials who try to recollect their past exploits.
These officials were not allowed to make notes from police files when composing their memoirs, even during their professional years they were not allowed to make public declarations of their private opinions. So yes, of course they will inevitably make errors 50 or so years later.
Paul Begg, in his A-Z say's:
"Despite some inaccuries, the memoirs give a convincing first-hand account of police work on the ground. The frequent errors in the third of the book devoted to the Ripper case are of the kind one would expect from an honest man reminiscing without recourse to documents".
Stewart Evans in his, The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, includes Dew with Inspector Beck when discussing the arrival at Millers Court.
Beck and Dew arrived together according to Stewart. Actually another report includes Sargeant Bedham (Badham, Betham) as well, but most all news accounts only mention Inspector Beck. This does not mean no-one else accompanied him, from a practical perspective we would not expect a single Inspector to go alone, and what is more we read that Insp. Beck sent word back to the Station concerning a message to Warren. Who do we think carried such a message?, I suggest there were several policemen with Beck.
Walter Dew was a Detective-Sergeant at that time, Badham was also only a Sergeant, perhaps that is why they did not figure prominantly in the news accounts. Even though Dew was attached to the CID he was outranked by Inspector Beck, hence Badham, Dew and other policemen get no profile.
If Paul Begg (Skinner & Fido) & Stewart Evans are suitably satisfied with the overall account written by Dew in his memoirs then so am I.
All errors duly noted and allowed for, the memoir is invaluable as a belated record of an investigation frought with problems.
Regards, Jon |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
P.S.
There is also an account that Godley was among the first to arrive at Millers Court, Godley was not stationed at Commercial Street Station, Beck, Dew & Badham were.
Unless Godley was visiting it is doubtful how he could have been among the first to arrive. we do know however, several cabs arrived in Dorset St. full of police officials & Detectives, an assembly as had never been witnessed before.
Maybe Godley was among the first of those late-commers to arrive?.
It didn't take long for Abberline to get there, possibly Godley arrived with him.
Regards, Jon |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Thanks Jon,OK,Walter Dew was as reliable as any.I can go with that.But I would need to know his reasons for dismissing Hutchinson before accepting that what he is saying about him means anything much.Also Mrs Maxwell.A simple way to verify her statement regarding the height of Mary Kelly would have been to get a tape measure.If she was wrong about her height she was probably wrong about the time she thought she saw the Mary Kelly we are talking about.
Natalie |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Natalie:
Yes, I would have liked Dew to ellaborate on his reasons for dismissing Hutch', but alas...
Didn't the police check out Mrs Maxwell's story about going on errands that morning?, I believe so, and they found that the people she claimed to have visited that morning confirmed her story.
So apparently, she had the day right.
Regards, Jon |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 271
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
Jon,
I would not accuse Walter Dew of consciously lying or even trying to sensationalize, but at the same time there is no real reason to accept anything he wrote about the Ripper investigation without a generous dollop of salt.
The editors of A to Z cut him considerable slack when they wrote "The frequent errors in the third of the book devoted to the Ripper case are of the kind one would expect from an honest man reminiscing without recourse to documents." Fine, except we know there are frequent errors because those were statements that could be checked against the known facts.
However, given that there were many errors in areas that could be fact-checked, why should anyone put much stock in things that Dew wrote that cannot be verified at this far remove in time? His memoirs may well give a sense of what the investigation was like for those on the ground, so to speak, but in light of the dubious veracity of Dew's memory on actual "facts" it would seem prudent to consider much of what he wrote as "not proven" at the best.
Don. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 307
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Donald,
I couldn't have put it better myself.
And I might add that the editors of the A to Z seem to cut most law enforcement officials considerably more slack than their statements probably deserve, based upon the number and type of errors they contain as well as the lack of the kind of verifying comments from others that would probably exist if the things they claimed were true actually were.
But then that's one of the big controversies of the field. I'm firmly on the side of wanting verification before anything is believed.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Donald.
Like all memoirs, specific details are compared with known facts where available.
It is not the erroneous statements with which we take issue, neither is it with the accurate statements, but only those statements which are not verifiable outside of the book itself.
The issue is 'how do we determine accuracy and by what determination do we accept or reject the unknowns'.
I have been at pains to explain that insofar as we cannot religiously accept an 'unknown' based on several accurate statements, neither can we reject an 'unknown' because of several unrelated inaccuracies.
I have been comparing one of his 'unknowns' with a completely different source and with the known number of doctors which had to have access to the corpse while on the bed. And I conclude that this particular 'unknown' cannot be easily rejected. Namely, the position of the bed.
This still doesn't mean he was right, but without a contrary source with which to outwardly reject it, the statement concerning the position of the bed is a reasonable detail to be aware of.
Or, if you are referring to the complete book then I would say we cannot judge every statement with a blanket determination, each statement must be judged on its individual merits.
Regards, Jon
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 12:40 am: | |
"I'm firmly on the side of wanting verification before anything is believed."
Dan.
You are not unique in looking for verification.
What I see in your critique of peoples suggestions is that you prefer to insist on 'proof' before you will entertain any solution.
There's nothing wrong with that approach, for the most part I think many take the same view. There's a difference between accepting a tentative solution and believing a theory is fact.
Today, with improved evidence gathering methods we can afford to take a clinical view towards evidence interpretation, but this modern approach is very much wasted on a case that is 120 years old.
Nothing that comes to mind in any of the Whitechapel murders is beyond dispute. The evidence gathering methods were primative, witness testimony is dubious, many of the stated times are arguable. Much of the medical evidence is lost and what remains is open to wide interpretation. Even the Inquest testimony is largely one sided, we have answers to questions, but for the most part the questions are not stated in the Inquest records. "By Juror" means a Juror asked a question, the answer is given, but we have no idea what the question was.
Lastly we have pretty poor memoirs written long after the fact as to be little more than 'interesting to informative'.
Given all these uncertainties your 'clinical' approach is largely wasted, to the point of being counter-productive.
We all know, certainly the more long-term residents of the Casebook all know, that the evidence as it stands requires large portions of speculation to even attempt to make sense of it.
Speculation, so long as it is based on interpretation of evidence, is quite acceptable.
We can speculate, for example, on interpretating the sequence of wounds based on medical testimony, to me that is productive speculation.
What is not productive, to my mind, is speculation based on an idea, like the suggestion that 'maybe' some misguided member of Royalty was responsible, because 'maybe' he killed them to shut them up, because 'maybe' they knew a secret, because 'maybe' he had done something ...etc...etc.
As for Hutch?, personally I am suspicious of his description, it is too good. Did the event actually occur?, I don't know. It may have, and it may have been embelished by Hutch. He may have entirely made it up, but unless his 'toff' can be verified by anyone or anything else I prefer to leave it on the shelf.
I don't trash it, because we simply do not know. Neither do I accept it for the same reason, it is to be kept in mind and we move on to something which can be discussed.
I never talk about Hutch, for this exact reason.
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
'Leave truth to the police' W.H.Auden
Hmmmmm an interesting line in this context
Hutchinson's description is i know a tad elaborative but cannot ,with all the rest of the baggage attatched to this case be dismissed- Abberline didn't dismiss it after all.
However as to the 'maybe'concept..I feel that 'maybe' should never be dismissed...I'm sure that many a case would never have been solved without someone asking or thinking ....'maybe'..
Suzi
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 308
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Jon,
I really don't get at all how you think that critical thinking about the evidence (or lack of evidence) in this case is "largely wasted, to the point of being counter-productive." If trying to stick as close as possible to what really happened is inconvenient to coming up with solid conclusions about disputed events, that's just a reflection of the reality of the situation. I think it's better to be honest with ourselves and say we don't really know than to convince ourselves that we know things when the support for those conclusions just isn't there.
And the oddest thing is that you allow yourself to decide that Hutchinson probably is worth ignoring completely based upon the notion that what he said a few days after the killing sounds unlikely, yet my questioning what some of the police officials said decades after the fact (when many of the things they said that we can check the accuracy of are proven incorrect) is somehow a bad strategy?
I'm sorry, but your statements just don't make sense to me. You can't convince me that critical thinking is a poor strategy in any field that tries to be concerned about facts and reality. It sounds all too much like the "logic schmogic" (or whatever that was) complaint raised in another thread.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
The very point about Dr Stowell actually is that he was not only a personal friend of Gull"s son in law but he was executor to his will and had had some intimate knowledge of the familly.As listed above he was a highly qualified man to speak about these people and a contemporary of numbers of people who write about the ripper today-viz Donald Rumbelow[who is ofcourse some 50 years younger but was writing about the ripper back in the seventies ie around the same time as Dr Stowell came out with his assertions!Now Dr Stowell may have done all this for some kind of sensation seeking "moment".Nontheless his testimony still deserves to be kept in mind.His work record[always a good sign of mental health]is second to none by all accounts he was very highly respected,eminent and by the sound of it an outstanding scholar in the field of medicine.
So he deserves to be borne in mind and not just dismissed for the same sort of reasons perhaps as Walter Dew"s memoirs deserve consideration. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi Dan
At last!!!! someone who agrees with me that Hutchinson had something...however questionable maybe but SOMETHING to say!
George can never and must never be discounted like the Mrs Maxwells of this world!
OK we have nothing to go on except writings and press reports etc etc but things haven't changed that much have they?
I'm sorry Jon ...nothing in this case can be totally dismissed...ok sometimes put to one side or giggled at but....never totally dismissed
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Suzi.
" I'm sorry Jon ...nothing in this case can be totally dismissed...ok sometimes put to one side or giggled at but....never totally dismissed."
But isn't that what I've been saying?.
I don't dismiss it, I just don't talk about Hutch' because for me it is a dead end discussion, it leads nowhere, so I shelve it.
I don't say 'yes', I don't say 'no',....I just don't say anything.
Even if we do accept this 'toff' it leads nowhere, no-one else saw him, there's no evidence he was ever in the room, he's a ghost.
I just don't join in discussions about Hutch's credibility based on his statement.
If you can see it taking us to a next step, or solving anything please explain.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on September 26, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 9:44 pm: | |
Hi Dan.
"If trying to stick as close as possible to what really happened is inconvenient to..."
But isn't the point of the discussion to help determine what really happened?. Is there a disputed event which can be rationalized by agreeing on an actual related event?
I guess I'm not following your general point.
"And the oddest thing is that you allow yourself to decide that Hutchinson probably is worth ignoring completely based upon the notion that what he said a few days after the killing sounds unlikely,.."
Not by you, not by anyone else, only by me.
I choose to make myself aware of the statement but do not get involved, not taking either side, not "because" his description sounds unlikely (though I agree it does), but "because" the very existance of this 'toff' has no bearing on what happened that night.
If we found a red neck-chief or a red watch chain seal in her room then absolutely his statement would be significant. But as it stands Hutchinson might as well have said nothing, we are none the wiser for him coming forward.
So, it is not the dressy atire that should matter in whether we accept his statement, but whether his statement leads us anywhere, I don't think it does.
Now, a consideration crossed my mind long ago.
I wonder how many theatrical posters were on view in Whitechapel advertising the play, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
And, how was Richard Mansfield, the lead character, pictured?...how was he dressed?
Regards, Jon
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Or mannequins...eh Mr Hinton ?
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Mont!
Right Jon-
Although Hutchinson has a lot of problems attatched he is still very much part of the story..like it or not.
As to the posters for J&H Im sure they probably were around in the area..but nobody really had the wherewithall to have a night out at the theatre....I feel they may have said 'Look at that toff there then' Rather than 'Ain't that the cove I saw in Thrawl St last week?'!!
Oooooh yes I looked up mannequin (as you do) in the Thesaurus and love this...dummy,copy,counterfeit ,double....The as now Mannequins are made to fit the look and style of the day...maybe Mr M was the very model of Mr 1888!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 7:06 pm: | |
Suzi.
Whether the description given by Hutch is reliable or not matters little. The story he gives is maybe somewhat corroborated by Sarah Lewis, who at about 2:30am told us that she witnessed a man standing outside the lodginghouse looking up the court. So, yes it is possible he saw someone with Kelly at that time but thats about the extent of it, isn't it?.
Regards, Jon |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
G'day,
His story was not corroborated by Sarah Lewis at all. Sarah Lewis stated her story first! So all that could be verified was that a man was there, and his attension was on something that was happening in Miller's Court.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
G'day,
If George Hutchinson had have made his claims to the jury at Mary Kelly's inquest then afterwards Sarah Lewis showed up and said she saw a man outside Crossings, THEN she would have been corroborating that part, (and only that part), of his story.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Scot,
Innocent until proven guilty.Most people take that literaly,but it is'nt so.The full text reads,'It is a principle of British justice,that a person be considered innocent untill proven guilty'.Not enshrined in any law that I know of.It is a judges rule.Most cases are not decided entirely on proven facts,there is an element of belief by both judges and juries,that decide innocence or guilt in a lot of cases.
So it is with George Hutchinson and his statement.It does not conform with my idea of normal behaviour,and it does not conform with normal abilities.
For instance it seems odd that a killer who so far had managed to avoid direct recognition,should suddenly parade himself in an attire and manner that immediately drew attention to himself.Of course there is no proof he was the killer or was the ripper.He was however reported to have gone to her room,and was not known to have left before her murder.
It is what Hutchinson says about this person and the activities Hutchinson reports as happening in the short period after 2A.M.that disbelievers question.Most of the police at the time,and most authors avoid discussing Hutchinson at any length.Why?.It is surely the best lead to the possible unmasking of the murderer.Even Walter Dew who is reported as favouring the twelve o'clock visitor as the ripper,must surely have been aware that Hutchinson puts another man in her room.
I believe Kelly's killer was also the Ripper,and perhaps we should leave Hutchinson to his own thread. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
I agree with you there is a lot of time to explain between 2:00am or 2:30am and 3:45am the time I believe the ripper killed Kelly. It is possible that the man tha George saw was just a client and that Kelly went out after 3:00am and picked up the ripper. The statement that Abberline made to the press that no one ever got a good look at the ripper would lead me to believe that he either did not believe Georges testimony or he thought that the man George described was not the ripper.
All the best,CB |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Jon,
I can understand Walter Dew's opinion of the midnight visitor if he disbelieved Hutchinsn,as that person would then be the last reported sighting of Kelly with a man.
However it doesn't explain Hutchinson's presence in Dorset street.Nothing there to attract anyone especially on a cold wet November night.And Kelly's murder was the only reported event of significance,in that street,that night. |
Gregg Pippin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
Hi all,
I've frequently read this site for about a year now, but have never posted before. I hadn't been on the site for a few weeks before tonight, so my comments might be a little late. If so, I apologize.
I thought about this as I read the dialogue between Tom and Glenn from early Sept.
I am a veterinarian. I see a lot of dogs with trauma and hemorrhage. I also occasionally have a panicked owner call me about their dog's post-operative bleeding. In 9.5 years, it has never turned out to be a significant amount of blood, post-op I mean, not trauma. What I have learned from this is that it takes a surprisingly small amount of blood to make a mess and that the layperson consistently overestimates (usually dramatically overestimates) the amount of blood loss. So I wonder, is it possible that since we only have a photo of the Kelly crime scene, and our "pictures" of the amount of blood at the other scenes are based on the doctors' comments, could the difference in blood between Miller's Court and the other scenes, particularly Hanbury St. and Mitre Square, be largely a perceived difference based on the comparison of a professional opinion to the opinion of laypersons?
In other words, is the average person overestimating the amount of blood at Miller's Court based on the photo, or is there really significantly more?
Also, I have performed several post-mortems, including removal of kidneys, uteri, and hearts. Because the great vessels must be transected to remove the heart, there is a lot of bleeding even post-mortem. The post-mortem bleeding associated with removal of the kidney and uterus is insignificant. The blood pools in the abdominal cavity, and is only spilled if the body is turned from the back to the side or turned over. So if the heart was removed from Mary Kelly, there would have been more blood compared to the other scenes where only abdominal mutilations were done.
In short, I wonder if anything meaningful (e. g. botched job, overzealous copycat) can be inferred from the blood bath at Miller's Court. I'm not saying that the answer is no, just that it is something to consider.
Sorry if that dragged on a bit.
Gregg
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hi Leanne.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply Sarah came forward in an attempt to support Hutch, just that her statement 'may' lend credence to his, IF the stout man was Hutch, this we do not know.
Corroboration, I believe, does not rely on who speaks first just that one supports the other.
AND, that the presence of both parties can be confirmed.
It's always possible that Hutch realized he had been seen in Dorset St. and came forward to provide justification for his presence, but, Sarah Lewis did not recognise the man, could not name him, so I suspect that proposal has no merit.
Harry.
Your a thinker Harry, you make some good points.
CB.
Yes, I'm still not committed to Kelly being a Ripper victim, I still look for that rumor that her clothes were still wet at 1:30pm, I want to either rule it out, or confirm whether it was noticed by someone. That might lend credence to her once again leaving Millers Court after 3:00am.
Thats when it really started to rain I believe.
Welcome Gregg.
When you talk about autopsies, are you referring to animals or people?
Best Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Hi!!!!!!!!!!! all newcomers
Jon-The fact is IT DOES MATTER!..as Leanne points out Sarah came up with this story FIRST..there WAS A MAN SEEN ok...
Sarah saw a man whos attention was into the court and thats it....whether of course this was Hutch we only have Hutch's word for it and there of course is another story...Maybe he was covering for someone else!!!...feel a few (a lot of...........................................
.. worms creeping out of a can here!
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Suzi, please explain why it matters.
Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1369
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Jon
Right It MATTERED because it was mentioned !...There are always the things that happen after the event so to speak and I hate to say it ..the Yorkshire Ripper comes to mind here!..A lot of police time and effort was wasted on the 'evidence that'The Ripper' provided and of course they were believed and acted on by George Oldfield at the time...I hate to say it... but that's how I feel...Abberline felt and at the time,I think the City and Met police felt and acted in much the same way!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 169
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi all,
Ok, I am going to put this case in shades of whitechapel, no really I am. Why, because I constantly find it a useful reference for the casebook, it in no way mirrors the crimes of JtR.
Here in Perth Western Australia, one of our most famous serial killers was Eric Edgar Cooke. He commited his crimes in the late 1950's early 60's. I mention him here on this thread for one reason. When he was still in his infancy as a criminal his crimes were mainly burglaries. He would break into houses and steal petty ammounts of cash. Some years later when he was caught for murder he confessed to most of the crimes he had ever committed. He then lead the police on a tour of Perth and it's suburbs pointing out his deeds. He was able to describe each and every crime in such detail that police were amazed at his memory. He could describe the inside of each house exactly and remember pound and pence each ammount he had stolen, some dating back several years. The Police checked his stories and verified the vast majority. Those they could not verify were usually due to witness' lack of memory not the culprits'.
I relay this story to illustrate my point. To merely say GH remembers too many details or is too detailed in his statement to Police and therefore his story has a ring of untruth about it is not good enough. The story above is true. You may pile all the empirical evidence against GH that you wish, the fact remains it is possible that he simply remembered the details that he did. The next time you wish to ignore his testimony out of hand ask yourself why. If the only reason you come up with is because it is fishy, then perhaps you are only fooling yourself.
PS: before anyone says it, yes I have only stated one case and I have not proved GH's veracity. This is just one case I have come across there are others, I just am unaware of them.
Scotty. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Thanks Scott!!!!
The Crook story is wonderful! thanks for that!
OK I know the Hutch story has many 'flaws ' but in this sort of thing thereby often lie some grains of the truth!!!
Thanks again Scotty!!!!! Glad to know I'm not the only Hutch supporter here!!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi Scott.
Two points..
You said:
"To merely say GH remembers too many details or is too detailed in his statement to Police and therefore his story has a ring of untruth about it is not good enough."
Agreed, there are several reason's why one person can have a photographic memory, that was not my issue. I see his description as 'theatrical', and maybe that is because of my limited knowledge of the type of people who frequented the Dorset St. area's.
For the life of me I can't imagine such an individual sauntering through the ruffest (roughest) part of the East End where police patrolled in two's for safety, and here we have 'Lord Muck' strolling through it as though he owned the place, apparently without any thought for his own safety - its just a bit of a stretch for me.
(Of course, if he had an 8 inch knife under his belt...) - but, you get my drift?.
And the next point..
" ..When he was still in his infancy as a criminal his crimes were mainly burglaries.."
There may be more than coincidence in that remark:
Tinker, Taylor.
Soldier, Sailor.
Richman, Poorman.
Beggarman........Thief!
Almost a rollcall of Ripper suspects. And the last one may have been "Jack's idea of fun".
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Jon
OK the Hutch thing has some problems but at the end of the day someone or something made him get his backside out of wherever he was.. and toddle off to the Old Bill!
There is of course the odd thing about talking to a police officer some days earlier but I think that this could so easily have been dismissed as lack of memory ,on either Hutch's ,or the policeman's part, as to be 'invisible' shall we say.
The only real mystery here I feel Jon, is WHY after George coughed....Abberline was summoned!?
Suzi
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Hi All,
Scott, the problem I have with Hutchinson's statement is not that he *remembered* too many details, I question how he could possibly have perceived them in the first place.
According to his own statement, he had only a brief glance at the man under very dark conditions. Under these conditions, even if a witness is deliberately studying a stranger's appearance, as Hutchinson claimed he was doing, they will normally pick up on only a few generalities: height, weight, approximate age. Yet, Hutchinson describes minute details of the man's appearance, the type of fur lining his jacket, the size and type of his watchchain, the color of his eyelashes, etc.
Hutchinson also described the handkerchief handed to Kelly as being red. As Bob Hinton and others have pointed out, in darkness color is not distinguishable, the color red would appear black, other colors would appear as black, white, or varying shades of gray.
So Hutchinson's memory is not even the issue, it's the superhuman eyesight and god-like attention to detail he would have needed to see these things in the first place. If Hutchinson did not possess those abilities, then the only other explanations that make any sense are that he embellished the sighting, or invented it entirely.
Cheers, 
Jim
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Jim
Yes, I must sadly agree that the details given by Hutch are uncannily 'accurate'.
I feel in my heart of hearts that Hutch certainly saw someone...but have a slight problem re the horseshoe pin etc.
Maybe this was something that came to him in the intervening days I don't know but the handkerchief incident has a certain ring about it that has an uneasy charm...maybe just if they were underneath the lamp the colour of the handkerchief may just have been visible as a flash of colour,like.........I hate to say it.........in a Sickert painting!
Cheers
Suzi
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
Hi all
There are a few things that I believe to be true.
1. Mary Kelly was a ripper victim.
2. Mary Kelly was killed around 3:45am.
3. George Hutchinson was not Jack the ripper.
4. George saw someone with Kelly that night.
5. The ripper murders stoped after the Kelly murder.
Mary Kelly was a ripper victim. This is important because the fact that the murders stopped after the Kelly murder indicates that something must of happend to the ripper shortly after the Kelly murder in order for the murders to stop. Either an eye witness description was accurate enough to put the police on to the ripper and they questiond him causing him to flee or they locked him up in an asylum or he commited suicide or just perhapes he died of other causes. The fact that Kelly was the last ripper victim gives us an end to the cycle of killings and helps us narrow are suspect pool.
Mary was killed around 3:45. I believe this elimnates suspects like Cox's stranger and sheds doubt on Maxwell's testimony.
George Hutchinson was not Jack the ripper. Some have suggested that George came forward and invented his story because he wanted to draw suspicion away from himself. I am not buying this idea. George willing places himself at the crime scene and there by bringing suspicion on himself. something he did not have to do. It was not a crime to be on the streets of Whitechaple and if Abberline had somehow figured out that he was the man that Lewis saw then George could have given an alibi for any of the other murders and most likely been dismissed as a suspect. [ I am sure he was questioned by the police.]Unless George was the ripper he most likely would have been able to clear his name. I do not believe he was the ripper. Some have sugggested that he came forward for attention or reward money. I am not sure that George would have beeen to eager to throw his name around in connection with the Whitechaple murders. He may not have been to afraid of the ripper but he may have been afraid of the mob. There have been stories of people who were herassed when connected in anyway to the ripper murders. I believe the reward was only given if the ripper was actually captured due to information supplied so I do not think that George by makeing up a story could benifite unless he had seen this man with Kelly at some time that evening or he was just a suspicious charactor that George had seen around or maybe with Kelly at some earlier date.
George saw someone with Kelly that night. I do not believe George was the ripper and he would have no reason to fear being suspected as the ripper and if he was afraid he would be suspected I believe he would rather claim he was not in the area then admitt to being there. Since lewis tends to back up his story, I tend to believe him. It would be one thing if lewis had just seen a man standing watching the court but she also saw a man and a woman [ The woman worst for drink.] as well.
The ripper murders stoped after the Kelly murder. This is important because it tells us that something had to have occured to make the murders stop.
All the best,CB
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Scott,
We can not say for certain that Cooke recited from memory,everything that happened.A large number of the incidents were published in the press,so it may have been a case of recalling from press reports.Also his memory could have been refreshed from the interviews with police.In some cases it was like the incident with Hutchinson,he could say anything because there was no one to refute him.
I too have read the Cooke case,and I find no singular description that equalls Hutchinson.Cooke's crimes were premiditated,he had foreknowledge of some of the things he would later remember.Hutchinson on the other hand was remembering incidents and descriptions that at the time would have no meaning for him.He could not anticipate the nights happening. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
"Mary Kelly was a ripper victim. This is important because the fact that the murders stopped after the Kelly murder..."
Hello CB.
It is commonly accepted that Kelly was a Ripper victim, but it is by no means a fact.
"The fact that Kelly was the last ripper victim..."
Kelly was the last mutilated victim, but whether she was a Ripper victim at all is still disputed.
One particular approach I have been viewing this from is that Jack may well have used a ligature before the knife, if that is the case then the murder of Rose Mylett is also in the running.
Facts are few and far between in this case and most people use the word 'fact' as a figure of speech, not really intending such a restrictive meaning. I think the word is overused.
There certainly isn't enough evidence to include Rose Mylett as a Ripper victim at this stage, and it can easily be argued that more than one villain could have used a ligature, but it is a possibility that should be kept in mind, and should it be true it opens up a completely different prespective to this series of murders.
"George Hutchinson was not Jack the ripper."
Agreed, I think it is unlikely he killed Mary Kelly, and there's no reason to connect him with the other murders either.
"George saw someone with Kelly that night."
I believe this is true, someone, maybe the description was a little embellished but I accept it was based on an actual event.
"The ripper murders stoped after the Kelly murder. This is important because it tells us that something had to have occured to make the murders stop."
And thats how you so easily end up on the wrong track.
regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hi all
Out of all this I think that the idea that I cannot get rid of is that failing all embellisments and everything else ..George H saw SOMEONE with Mary that morning!
As to the fact that serial killers dont stop this has always been a problem hasn't it.....do they?...I'm not totally convinced that they dont just stop....ok we've got the thing about they have died,been incarcerated etc etc but maybe if their particular 'deed' was done they may just may stop!!
(possibly live the rest of their life in horrors various but stop!)
There is a dark lurking thing about Mary that makes me uneasy about her being a Ripper victim at all!..maybe its because the whole thing is SO different to the 'rest' that brings this on but can't help but think all of the 'romance' surrounding Mary is clouding our view on looking at the Millers Ct Murder as a 'one off' cashing in on the preceeding murders as a way of covering up so to speak ...may have been a good day to bury bad news! As I think may have been used before!
Cheers
Suzi
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do!
Jean Paul Sartre |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Lets assume, that Barnett did kill Kelly , for the simple reason he tried everything to perswade her to halt her immoral ways which failed, so he decided that she deserved to die because of her ways, he had wastefully killed five other women.
In his mind by killing kelly in the most brutal way imaginable ,he had rid himself of guilt, she had been the cause of the murders, and by despatching her, the murderous spree ended.
That scenerio is hard to understand for us, which have non murderous ways, but to attempt to enter a troubled mind it is a plausible reckoning.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Yes I see that this could be a plausible reckoning here and can see where youre coming from but.......here we go again!
There seems to be something SO DIFFERENT about our Mary as to I guess ,either go with your theory ,or detatch it from the others totally and then of course we have another mega -can of worms to prise open!
Suzi
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do!
Jean Paul Sartre |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 321
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
I just don't see what you think is so different about Mary. It seems to me the only thing different about her is that she was more of the same... And that people romanticize her more than any other victim.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
"..George H saw SOMEONE with Mary that morning!"
Agreed.
"There is a dark lurking thing about Mary that makes me uneasy about her being a Ripper victim at all!"
Welcome to the club.
We don't have to have fringe theories or outlandish speculation, simple doubt is sufficient.
regards, Jon |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
