|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 284
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:10 am: | 
|
Hi again all!
Wow...err...where to start!?
Glenn:
"If he paid that much attention to details on the night in question, he apparently had some purpose of doing so, so why wait to deliver information about this person to the police? Clearly his alleged actions that night gives the impression of someone who has the intention to act. If he were that concerned for her safety, why let her take that person inside her room, where she would be defenseless and out of vision?"
I don't see how Hutchinson's recollection of the details meant that he had already intended to 'act.'
Isn't it possible that he simply took a good look at the man that was with Mary because he was curious about him? Especially since, by Hutchinson's own testimony, he tried to hide his face as he walked by with Mary, and when Hutchinson stooped, he looked at him "stern." ??
I don't think that Hutchinson had any intent to act there and then.
"Adam,
I have only one thing to say... 'oh boy'..."
Wow, I was expecting to cop a bit more of a serve than that! ;)
"-- This night was overcast. How close to the couple were you when you were able to see the details of the man, and during the incident when he looked at you stern, since you were capable of picking up so many details? Can you give us some estimations?"
That was already answered by Hutchinson, since he clearly stated that he was against a gas lamp outside the Queen's Head public house at the time that Mary and the man she was with passed him.
By saying that much, I think he near enough answers those points you listed there.
The rest of the questions, though, probably should have been asked by Abberline, you're right.
"Most puzzling of all, why would the man (especially if he was the murderer) continue to follow Mary kelly into the court where she lived, if he had noticed Hutchinson following them and also knew Hutchinson had managed to get a good look at him?"
How would he know that Hutchinson was following them? What if he was simply walking the same way?
Besides that, the man with Mary, who apparently was trying to avoid Hutchinson getting a good look at him, may have thought that he didn't get a good look at him, and so wasn't concerned.
We know the Ripper was a risk-taker, after all...
R.J. Palmer:
Yes, some great posts from you on this thread, and rather than reply to each one, suffice to say that I completely agree with most of what you've written.
As you said earlier on, "Free George Hutchinson!".
Harry:
"It is not so much the supposed sighting by Hutchinson alone that is odd,it is the fact that no one else saw anything.Or reported seeing anything."
Well that's not the only instance of that, Harry.
What about Elizabeth Long? She saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street in half-daylight, yet I don't think anyone else reported seeing her in that area near that time.
What's the difference between that and Hutchinson?
Nobody saw Cathy Eddowes in between when she was released from the police station, and when she was seen by Lawende & Co.
Again, what's the difference?
It's pointless to just single out Hutchinson.
"Hutchinson then stands for another 45 minutes in a position that any patrolling officer would notice his presence,but apparently none does."
Sarah Lewis did, though.
And, besides, even if a patrolling officer did notice Hutchinson near Miller's Court, was it a crime to stand in the street?
A lot might have been classed as a crime back then, but I don't think standing in the street was one of them.
"Then Hutchinson walks the streets for the rest of that night,and again seems unobserved."
How do you know Hutchinson just walked the streets for the rest of that night?
Just wondering - I haven't heard about that before.
"To take the event one stage further.No matter when Kelly was killed,be it night or early morning,4AM,or 9AM,Hutchinson has no alibi,his whereabouts unconfirmed.By introducing a suspect at 2AM,he would be within the timelimits stated by a doctors report as to when Kelly died."
It's true that his where-abouts went unconfirmed, but I imagine that Inspector Abberline would have made sure of that, and in any case, it must have been a believable one.
As for supposedly introducing a suspect because it fitted in the timeline of the doctor's reports, are you forgetting Sarah Lewis's testimony?
It seems reasonably clear that Hutchinson was seen by Lewis, who stated that she saw a man looking up the court as if he was waiting for someone to come out of there.
Or did Sarah Lewis lie too?
Perhaps there was 2 men in the same place at the same time with the same story?
Or, as the more logical solution suggests, Sarah Lewis really did see George Hutchinson, who was waiting to see if Mary or the man she was with would re-appear.
Bob Hinton:
"1. Would anyone be so daft as to display his wealth in such an obvious way in such a dangerous area. Mr Palmer says possibly."
Mr. Palmer is correct.
The Ripper was a risk-taker. Perhaps he dressed up just for the thrill of drawing extra attention to himself. We know, for example, that suspects like Francis Tumblety liked to draw attention to themselves.
Plus, as I've already said, if the man with Mary really was the Ripper, he was intent on murder and was armed with sharp knives.
Would you like to have been on the receiving end had you tried to rob him in that situation?
I know I wouldn't!
So, yes, it is possible.
"To expose the watch to clear view I have to physically hold both the jacket and overcoat open. Why would anyone walk down a street at two o clock in the morning, in the freezing rain and cold deliberately holding my nice warm overcoat and jacket open?"
It depends what view Hutchinson had. Let's not forget that he had already seen the man with MJK before they even passed him. That would have meant that Hutchinson had a partly front-on view of the man for enough time. If his jacket and overcoat were undone, and Hutchinson had a front-on view from underneath a gas lamp, I don't think it's so unlikely that Hutch could have seen the watch.
Let's also not forget that this was taking place outside, so weather conditions must be factored in - what about wind, for example?
I think that's all I'll reply to for the time being, but I'd just like to finish up this post by re-iterating what I said in my post here before about witnesses being treated as liars too much.
George Hutchinson, by making the statement he did, was not only subjecting himself to public and police scrutiny, but also potentially putting himself in the place of #1 suspect, being possibly the last person to see MJK alive.
He had the choice not to come forward, or he certainly had the choice to give a dimmed-down version of events as he recalled them anyway.
And yet he didn't. He came out and gave the statement he did, putting himself in firing line in the process.
And what happened? He was believed by the police, namely Inspector Abberline, who, despite some other opinions, I think was a great detective, especially for his time.
At the end of the day, they were in London and involved with the case in 1888, we were not. They knew all the ins-and-outs, we still don't.
Therefore, I think we'd all be better off to give a little more credit and rely a little bit more on what was said and done by the police, and others, during the time of the Ripper murders.
Just my opinion and thoughts to finish off!
Regards,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3764
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Adam,
'I don't see how Hutchinson's recollection of the details meant that he had already intended to "act."'
No, I noticed that I had worded that sloppily. My mistake. What I meant was not 'act' as such, but 'act' as putting the information forward to the police as soon as possible. If the man raised his suspicions and he decided to pay that much attention to him, then Hutchinson clearly paid his attention to detail here for some special reason and had an intention to do something with it. That's all. Still, it took him three days.
However, that is not one of the more important points.
Nor is the point of the distance between him and the couple -- the one you address -- the most crucial either, but I totally disagree with you that that was answered in the report and the statement.
Yes, he said that he was near a gas lamp, but he doesn't say how close he was to the couple! This is important, because he was close enough to get all those details, but still Mary Kelly didn't say anything or objected to it -- after all, he was clearly interfering while she was picked up by a wealthy client. I don't think she would have appreciated that, especially since she -- according to Hutchinson's own account -- didn't seem to feel like she needed any protection.
But none of this is answered in the report. If Abberline had asked him to give an estimation it would have been easier to value the credibility of this remarkable story, which now doesn't seem to hang together at all or make any sense.
Let me ask you these following questions:
Don't you think it's strange that -- if Hutchinson were close enough to
a) be able to pick up all those details
b) make the man react and spot him, and hide his face
then why is there no reaction from Mary Kelly? Clearly she would have noticed him too if he was that close and there was no one else on the street. Why does Hutchinson fail to mention this, and why does Abberline fail to fill in this gap of information?
Don't you think it's strange that Hutchinson never describes Mary Kelly with a single world and that Abberline never seems to have asked Hutchinson about this.
If Hutchinson could have answered this, then it could have been confirmed that he really saw her that night (if he described her clothes correctly) and that he did know her, at least superficially by appareance -- here already they could have dismissed Hutchinson if he would be unable to deliver a correct answer. Now all we have is Hutchinson's own words on that he had known her 'for three years', which is not disputed by any counter questions. I am afraid that doesn't tell us much and it is sloppy police work.
Don't you think it's strange that the man continues to escort Mary Kelly into her own court, after having been that closely watched by Hutchinson. No you're right, we can't know how far away Hutchinson was from the couple at that time (AGAIN, another miss during the interview!), but still, he knew that Hutchinson had taken a good look at him. He even tried to hide his face, for God's sake! Clearly he didn't enjoy Hutchinson's presence!
Surely -- if he had sinister things in mind -- he would secure himself that he was not followed. You say: "We know the Ripper was a risk-taker, after all... "
Oh come on, Adam. That is not taking risks, that is just someone acting incredibly stupid!
Even if this man did exist, it is questionable if he was JtR anyway (if now Kelly was a Ripper victim at all), since he is million miles away from the descriptions delivered by Elizabeth Long and Lawende.
At least you can acknowledge that several of those questions I mentioned above should have been asked and looked into more in detail.
But clearly you must see that Hutchinson's statement does not at all add up one bit on these points (and several others).
If not, then I am afraid I must question your logic.
Based on the above, I can't come to any other conclusion -- although it can not be proven, of course -- than that Hutchinson's story was a complete fabrication. And if the police had asked the right questions, his name would never have appeared in any serious discussion regarding JtR. But in good 19th century fashion Abberline & Co flunk in interview technique -- they probably wanted a subject to chase as soon as possible because they were under pressure, and Hutchinson gave them one. This is what logic dictates, although there is no evidence of it.
Hutchinson couldn't have been telling the truth simply because his statement doesn't add up.
After the inquest and Sarah Lewis' statement, it would be way more risky for him NOT to come forward, if you put yourself in his position. He couldn't know how much the police knew about the man that had been seen outside the court and although Lewis maybe didn't even see Hutchinson but another guy (who knows?), then he couldn't know that. In his position -- and not being in the know -- he had nothing to loose by coming forward.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3766
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Bob,
I haven't noticed until now; this has been a busy thread...
But interesting points about the watch. Maybe I should dust off my old pocket watch as well...? However, I have no vest to go with it, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 723
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Here's a different take on this confrontation,assuming that Kelly was definitely a victim of the Ripper. In fact,it doesn't really matter if he was the Ripper or not, I suppose...
The last thing in the world the Ripper would have hoped for that night would be to antagonize Hutchinson or any other person he would come across that night, a someone whom the Ripper would have had to consider as a witness after he killed Kelly later on. The man with Kelly had to know that Hutchinson's focus was on him as he and MJK made it toward her apartment..so maybe his sneer was due to Hutchinson's persistence.
Men act differently before they have a "comfort zone",as this man Hutch saw may have naturally not had yet.... Prior to finding a woman of the night for the night ,its likely he could have been in a defensive frame of mind [ closed coat..hand on weapon in his pocket..eyes wide open for police and muggin' men..clenched fist..or even fingers crossed. One or more of these, I'd think ]considering the time of night that it was......
After picking Kelly up, his ego kicks in. Its testerosterone time and time to get into "ambassador" mode...show off that gold chain..puff out that chest a little bit..we're about to party woman...and you will do well for what I have in mind for you. Ain't you lucky,Mary...ain't I grand?
He sees Hutch. Back to the defensive mode..can't show his concern for Hutch,who is standing around idly at that hour and seems suspicious to us and more so to someone who had immediate plans and didn't need a Rain Man to mess the plan up. He doesn't want to appear wimpish to MJK..Damn this guy,the coat stays open !
Hutch has the territorial imperative. Its his neighborhood. Its his friend,MJK...He stares at the guy with his friend in his neighborhood on his turf.
The guy with MJK does the exact thing every guy here would do..try to avoid eye contact [ she is after all a prostitute ] with an unknown guy [ Hutch] hanging around , bigger than he is, on his own turf. He does what we call "turtling'...Discretion being the better part of valor, they say...
Hutch may have persisted in his staring. He gawks again. This time the situation has made Kelly's manfriend edgy and as a result,he for a brief moment, loses his cool and sneers back at Hutch. Now Hutch has a reason to check this guy out a little bit more...He just made a "move" on Hutch, albeit just a eyeball thing.....
Had this guy engaged Hutchinson as he and MJK walked up toward the flat and said something like..."Yo,buddy..How's it hanging?"..I feel that Hutch would have been nonplussed and this mnemonic phenomenon could have had trouble remembering MJK's suitor's height or even hat type.
Guys are like that.... Take the vantage point away from a man,as in this sort of example,by gregariously exchanging greetings with some other man,and they won't remember what sort of shirt you had on. Nothing violent or volatile...just basic man-to-man stuff. Oh ,they'll remember the exchange...but not much else. Guys are like that.
Hutchinson may very well have had been in "territorial imp. mode " or possessed the attitude in that moment or minute and had the requisite positioning to describe the man he saw the way he says he appeared and was not fabricating anything. Maybe, as R.J. posits, he is a viable witness. Not to argue against R.J. or anyone else,its nevertheless strange that it took so long for him to come forward on behalf of his eviscerated friend... From a confident,detailed description of this stranger on his own terms that night, to not finding his sack of Abraham [ that means guts,Glenners ] when it was time to stand up and be counted. Maybe Hutch was a coward.
After all,it was his friend killed on his turf by an outsider who did MJK in [ and shorter, more affluent, and gettin' the goods while he stands in the rain like a putz..all "guy" factors...a perfect time and opportunity for a little oneupsmanship for Hutchinson,nacht wir?]........in his face.
How Brown,
Street Sykiatrist
Cleckley,Hare,and How
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
"Visiting brothels (where the women looked better and where the guys didn't risk to get mugged) was a socially accepted thing to do for a man from the middle or better classes and absolutely nothing they had to hide or do undercover"
Unfortunately, Mr. Andersson this is simply not true. Whereas in the 1880s it was legal to take a whore up an alley, keeping a disorderly house --a brothel--was not. In the years prior to the Whitechapel Murders dozens upon dozens of brothels were closed down. Every book on Victorian prostitution speaks of it. But none of this is even relevant. The question is whether there was a wide-range of social classes in the East End, and whether dirty old men (or as Natalie points out, even glamorous and wealthy actors) have occasions to go 'slumming.' I don't think it's even arguable. I'll simply throw out one name. Arthur Munby. Gentleman and scholar with a thing for working-class ladies. A bit odd. Liked to dress his mistress up like a charwoman and photograph her. Wrote in his diary about following one working lass back to her little hovel in the Mile-End Road. Even had tea with her folks, if I recall. I do understand that Mr. Hinton's arguments are more sophisticated, of course, and are based on the lighting, even the optics of the eye, etc. so I don't wish to marginalize his points. I merely dispute the fact that it was only sailors and costermongers who were using these women, and would caste a cold eye on any "study" that said otherwise. What did these studies entail? Questionaires?
I do propose an experiment, however, for anyone who keeps swine. Take three pigs. Feed them all fish and chips. After thirty minutes butcher the first pig. After sixty minutes, butcher the other two. Disembowel them and study the stomach and intestines of the first two. Let the guts of the third sit in a tub for eight hours and then examine them. I have no idea what you would find, but I'd be interested if the stomach acids would continue to degrade the food in the third pig. I think this would be an excellent project for a gradeschool 4-H club. O.k., I'm joking. A bit off today, sorry. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
This is more like it!This is more like it Howard!and RJ!
The thing is you have let rip with the imagination for that encounter.....for once its not just the intellect working here its the blood gusto of the case.The scholar per se is OK and the author, the historian,artist whatever as long as we dont altogether lose sight of what fired him.
This is what I was getting at really....the man Hutch saw could have been the ripper and if he was how would he have behaved?
What was he after the ripper that night-a girl he could buy
a buxom girl out at 2am soliciting looked perfect,someone who not only appealed to the worst in him because of what she was but being a bit worse for drink wouldnt catch the evil glint in his eye.
He was literally dressed to kill and by letting her hear the jangle of money in his pocket he knew she would go for his bait.
Now Howard has told it in a way that I can follow.....
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3769
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Mr Palmer,
OK, I can acknowledge that things apparently worked different in England than it did in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe considering the English Victorian attitude of chastity (although that don't necessarily mean that you couldn't find prostitutes in other parts of London than the poor areas), and I readily admit that my knowledge about England especially (regarding these matters) is a bit limited compared to the research I've done regarding prostitution elsewhere. In many countries in Europe during this time period, the brothels were legal and run by the government as well as socially accepted while street prostitution was illegal.
Note that I did NOT rule out slumming or that these women could have clients from West End.
For the last time -- I know slumming existed and I know it was a frequent habit to do so among certain circles.
What I do object against is that these men were the East End women's common clients, when it in fact most certainly would be the working and lower middle class. As for East End, from what I gathered from literature, many people from other parts of London simply stayed out of there -- many Londoners seems in fact to have been totally ignorant of the social conditions there and the worst streets like Dorset Street and Thrawl Street appears to have had such bad reputation that even the police felt unsafe on occasion.
As I said quite clearly, this is NOT a point I am prepared to stress too strongly, and not a point that is really that important or relevant.
What is important is that Hutchinson's suspect -- Mr Jewish Christmas Tree -- feels constructed and based on newspaper antisemitic mythology. I do believe such a character would stick out as rather odd on Dorset Street, not least during the Ripper scare, mind you, and I believe he should have been noticed by others.
In such a climate where people were scared and suspicous of every stranger and where most men seen with newspaper parcels and black bags were brought in to the police or pointed out, I certainly think we can rule out toffs and other people that stood out from the ordinary. As I see it, Hutchinson's Jewish Astrakhan suspect was a figment of his own imagination, inspired by the anti-semitic cartoons in illustrated papers.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 696
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I can't help but notice that, although perhaps unintentionally, RJ did something similar to what George Hutchinson did: he seems to have given us something to chew on so that our attention would be distracted from what's really important - why was George Hutchinson there? What prevented him from going to bed in his usual lodgings?
GH had just finished a 10 mile footslog through cold and probably rainy weather. It was late. According to his own account, it's even quite possible that, at the time he said to have met MJK, he had just passed his usual lodgings - for no apparent reason.
So, I would have expected a lot more than just amazement causing him to follow the couple. Because at the end of the day amazement is really the only thing he offers as an explanation and that seems way too thin for me in comparison to the rest of his very detailed and elaborate story.
He might not have come forward at all. But the police knew about the man seen by Sarah Lewis and would probably be interested in him. So, he might have told the police he was just waiting for a chum, or a girlfriend. But maybe that way the police would grow suspicious of him. So, he needed something else and came up with a very detailed description of a suspect that may just as well have been made up from several bits and pieces of other witness descriptions, or, like Glenn has put it, a Jewish cut-out cliché from the illustrated papers. An incredibly detailed description. I'm quite sure that those who have experience with witness descriptions would say the same.
This doesn't mean George Hutchinson had to be a criminal, or Mary's murderer, but I'm rather confident that he was guilty of lying - for whatever reason.
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)
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2791
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Well said Frank!!!!!!!!
Am toooo busy trying to keep the brain in gear on pub talk but agree with your last comment!!!
BRB
Suzi |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
RJ
So it was the planet of Fools, of which I am the King.
Respect to you as ever.
If you ever get bored with this, and want to follow a real fool, try Buck Johnston the Giant Cowboy from Amerikee who took on the Fulham police in 1887.
Nothing to do with Jack, but hey, it's a nice story.
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Howard,
You mentioned a couple of times that the area was "his turf" (Hutchinson's). Assuming that Hutchinson's story is true, isn't it possible that the Ripper was also on his own turf? The reason why I am asking this is because it seems to me that with the different areas of Whitechapel the Ripper used to commit his deeds, the small amount of time he needed to carry them out, and the fact that he never got caught, leads me to believe that he was confident about his surroundings. That sounds like someone who is very familiar with the layout.
The story that G.H. gives to the police does sound too detailed...almost scripted. The description he gives sounds like a caricature...a flat character. What do you think?
Sandy |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Frank,
As ever with you, wheat and chaff.
Seeing as he told Mary he had no monies wouldnt that be a valid reason not to seek lodgings.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 119
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:56 am: |
|
Monty,
Huthchinso was ,according to his statement,a resident at the lodgings.Resident,as I understand it,describes more a person who resided permanently or semi permanent,and paid on a weekly basis.Much the same arrangement as Kelly and Barnett. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Harry,
Thanks for clearing that up.
Seeing as Hutchinson was unemployed for that day at least, and he travelled a fair way to Romford looking for work, would it be logical to think that work was sparse?
Casual labour would have been paid on a daily basis no?
So either Goerge was regularly employed up until November 8th or he pulled money in by other means?
That make sense?
Cheers for the info though,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 724
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Dear Sandy:
Your guess is as good as mine,Sandy. I think that the man with MJK was familiar with Whitechapel. I'm not really trying to support Hutchinson's story, but offering up a different way of looking at it.
But bottom line, it would seem to me that at least on that night, Hutch was in his turf....and so could have the other guy. Just some thoughts I had and just had to post,really [ ha ha ! ]...Do you have some ideas to share?...Thanks for reading mine..
Monty...you get any e-mail lately?
(Message edited by howard on July 21, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
How,
Not checked my mail for ages. Will do tomorrow.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 698
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
You’re quite right, that may have been the ‘no apparent reason’ I was talking about. This might be another one of those things Abberline and his team didn’t get into at all.
On the other hand, if I remember well, 1 or 2 newspapers seem to say that GH went back to his lodgings, but finding it closed he was forced to walk the streets the remainder of the night. If so, he did have monies, but not for Mary.
Cheers,
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)
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
G'day,
Glenn you said: 'After the inquest and Sarah Lewis' statement, it would be way more risky for him NOT to come forward, if you put yourself in his position. He couldn't know how much the police knew about the man that had been seen outside the court and although Lewis maybe didn't even see Hutchinson but another guy (who knows?), then he couldn't know that. In his position -- and not being in the know -- he had nothing to loose by coming forward.'
Glenn, how do you think Hutchinson heard about Sarah Lewis' testimony before 6.00p.m. on the same day she gave it?
Checking the press reports here, I see that the inquest details didn't appear in the papers until the following day. I found one newspaper that gave details of the inquest on the same afternoon that it occurred, but Sarah Lewis wasn't even mentioned. One newspaper report said that a few members of the public were allowed to view the inquest. What are the odds that Hutchinson knew one of these few people? I wouldn't mind betting that he was one of these few who were allowed to attend, or he went to the trouble of finding one and questioning them.
Hutchinson told the reporter of the 'Times' the day after he gave his statement, and the day after Abberline interrogated him: 'my suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.' If his suspicions were aroused by seeing a well dressed man on Dorset Street, what was he suspicious of?
He said in the same press report: 'I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning,'
I researched Petticoat Lane on a Sunday morning and found a contemporary report that stated: 'when two persons with clean faces and in moderately decent clothes meet there, they give one another an astonished stare.' Petticoat Lane was full of paupers and not the place for a well-dressed man to hang out.
It was the heart of the second-hand clothes exchange for London and was full of Jewish hawkers, trying to sell anything in various stages of 'second-handedness'.
One report I found stated: 'The various public-houses in Petticoat-lane, Harrow-alley, and elsewhere, are generally crammed to excess. Through the open doorways we look into the back rooms, where some dozen men are always smoking-their faces lost in the clouds of smoke which eminate from their lips. These men are known as Petticoat-lane fencers, or receivers of stolen goods. Patiently they sit in these filthy rooms, waiting news from their scouts, who they throw out as antennae to "feel the way", or for the appearance of the thief's confederate, who "gives the office", and tells where the booty may be found.'
Reading this causes me to wonder what George Hutchinson was doing in Petticoat Lane, and what was his well-dressed man doing there? And why was Hutchinson so worried about going to the police at first? Did he have something to hide from them?...Something about himself that he didn't want found out?
I also suspect that this 'well-dressed' man was disguised in second-hand clothing and sham jewellery, (which was also sold at Petticoat Lane), which is why he wasn't concerned about being seen entering Kelly's room with her, yet shied away when Hutchinson tried to get a close look at his face.
LEANNE
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 120
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Monty,
It is of course frustrating when discussing Hutchinson.There is so little information about him.It is as Glen says,a case of Aberline paying more attention to what Hutchinson was saying,than to the man himself.And the vexing question is,did Aberline write a truthful and full report to his superiors.
Adam,
You forget the important point.There was increased police patrolling and surveilance activity at the time of Kelly's death.I would doubt that 45 minutes would pass without a patrol along Dorset street,or that no surveilance would be on a principal thoroughfare such as Commercial St.Or that such a charade that was supposedly played out there would go unnoticed.
Where else do you suppose Hutchinson spent the rest of that night?He had no lodging,hence his presence on the streets. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3775
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
True, he came forward three days after the murder, not three days after the inquest (as I incorrectly may have written somewhere).
But let's face it; he waits three days after the murder, and then he comes forward after the closing of the inquest! This, I feel, does link him to the inquest in some way, it is just an interesting coincidence.
I don't think it can be ruled out that he could have been there himself or that he could have met someone he knew who had been inside there. This is perfectly reasonable.
As for disguise in second hand clothing and jewelery... sure, nothing is impossible. But then we are still working from the hypothesis that the man actually existed. I don't.
But if he did, then I don't think choosing an outfit that brings that much attention to himself would be a smart move. I mean, if GH:s statement has any truth in it, just look at the effect that outfit created.
"Reading this causes me to wonder what George Hutchinson was doing in Petticoat Lane, and what was his well-dressed man doing there? And why was Hutchinson so worried about going to the police at first? Did he have something to hide from them?...Something about himself that he didn't want found out? "
True, I totally agree on this. My thoughts as well.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Harry,
Yes, true. A very good point.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
It really seems as if George Hutchinson was waiting to see if anyone saw a man loitering outside Miller's Court, before he went to the police. Perhaps he had something to hide from them, (but not Murder because why did he go to police and introduce his name to the investigation?)!
He went to more trouble than waiting to read the morning papers, if it was Sarah Lewis' testimony that drove him to the police station just hours after she gave it! It was as though he was waiting for it....fearing it!
LEANNE
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Something that often strikes me as a possible reason for Abberline to take Hutch seriously is what we have been told about Abberline.Things like "he worked night and day on the case",that he was brought into it because of his expertise,that he knew all the "characters" and was trusted by the locals , liked a lot by the locals etc.Also that he had painstaking house to house searches done etc
I reckon Abberline could and would have found out a fair bit about Hutchinson from his police "contacts" and some of those locals living in the area around his Wentworth Street lodging house.
I think Abberline was actually what people thought him to be ,both at the time and later,
a very good ,hands on, detective.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3786
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Well, Natalie,
Conducting house to house search is one thing, but his report and his actions regarding the HUtchinson statement indicates quite clearly that the interview wasn't done properly and that he therefore draw less fortunate conclusions.
I see Abberline as a hard working detective but I am a bit more in doubt regarding his analyses or his judge of character. It is quite obvious that the police at this time had not developed an interrogation technique comparable to modern standards -- this can be seen in many examples from the 19th century. And it is quite evident that Abberline was no better no worse than his contemporaries.
Clearly Hutchinson's statement is not handled properly, and in the light of that the police were under immense pressure, they probably believed him and bought his suspect.
It is of course my interpretation, but I can't really see it any other way. After the Kelly murder they were clearly in panic.
It is of course possible that Abberline did check Hutchinson up, but none of this is confirmed in the report. However, what really speaks against it is that Hutchinson's statement is contradictive and just doesn't add up on several points. I believe Abberline could have discovered that if he had checked things further.
I am not saying he was incompetent -- on the contrary -- only that he was't the hot shot cop some makes him out to be.
The police as a whole, though, I believe did as good as they could for their time under the circumstances (except for some questionable flaws here and there), and they did work hard indeed (bringing in hundreds of people), but that is of course another matter.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
G'day,
Glenn: I think Abberline was a smart, 'street-wise' detective who was willing to try new methods and means to catch the Ripper. I have thought that maybe he knew Hutchinson's true reasons for waiting for the wealthy man to leave Miller's Court, and perhaps ignored them hoping that Hutchinson may lead police to the real Ripper. I could be wrong! Do you think this was possible?
LEANNE |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3787
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
Everything is possible -- we clearly have too little information stating one or the other for sure, and I could be wrong too. Nor can we ever establish the real reasons for Hutchinson waiting outside Miller's court.
From what I can see in the documents available, they indeed ignored a lot of inconsistencies in Hutchinson's statement, and I do believe they really hoped Hutchinson would lead them to the killer.
But to be frank, I see this more as a result of naivety, political pressure and desperation rather than anything else. Unless it all was a result of a massive cover-up including Hutchinson himself.
Fact remains that Hutchinson's statement on many points contains too many strange inconsistencies and odd circumstances, and the police didn't appear to have payed any attention to them -- although they apparently were forced to change 'Ten Bells' to 'Queen's Head' in order for the envirnomental details described by Hutchinson to add up, and such adaptions could indicate that they at this point was willing to go along with everything presented and desperately wanted Hutchinson's story to be true.
Hard working -- yes; 'street-smart' -- perhaps. But I can't say I see Abberline as especially smart. He could have been, but I don't see any signs of him standing out of the ordinary.
Nor do I see him as especially ground-breaking if we compare him to how the City police worked.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
I do realise these points you bring up are serious criticism of his interview strategies
and observations,though I refer back to Monty"s point about whether it was "all"that was written down etc in other words were some of his notes unofficially taken down and discarded afterwards when they didnt yield much fruit so they never got included in his official reports?All his superiors perhaps wanted were the bare boned facts of the case,"bullet" marked so to speak, so they didnt have to wade through too much paper work.
But I do agree that what has come down to us makes Abberline look curiously naive and gullible which I doubt he was in real life.
The characters he had to deal with on a daily basis would no doubt have given him that streetwise edge,and a keener understanding of the Whitechapel community-than the likes of Macnaghten,Anderson and co from the upper middle class who were probably at a complete loss over the hunt to catch the ripper.
I still tend to think the ripper was an outsider and that if he had not been, someone,somewhere would have known who he was -in that place, at that time, with everyone in the East End on full alert.
So on balance I would say Abberline may have been required to compose concise,conventional reports,that followed the procedures of that period and had a familiar pattern.What you say Glenn
about them all bearing similar features both here and in Sweden ,fits in with what I am thinking.
Also I myself,having none of the expertise,training as a detective,experience of Whitechapel at that very time etc would still immediately have sniffed a rat hearing Hutch"s story and been highly suspicious of a man coming to me, after the inquest, and saying that he had been as good as stalking the murdered
prostitute at 3.00 am on the night of the murder.
Nobody in his position could have failed to be at the very least a bit sceptical about his storyIMHO.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3788
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
True, Natalie -- at least under normal circumstances.
But consider the desperate situation. Both the English and the American press had ridiculed the London police already in the early start of the Ripper murders, and after the double event they had an enormous pressure on them from the politicians, the press and -- even worse -- the general public. Not to mention the fact that people suspected each other and sometimes took the law in their own hands when they found someone looking 'suspicious' during almost chaotic scenes.
After a seemingly calm October the police might have thought the Ripper had stopped, but then the Kelly murder happens -- worse than all the others.
It is not crazy to suggest that the police now were more or less in panic. Hutchinson was clearly treated as a suspect in the beginning, but that apparently changed when he could provide them with a very detailed description of a Jewish suspect. In that situation, and considering the enormous pressure they were under, it looks like they ignored all the unexplainable passages in Hutchinson's statement and gambled what they had on the suspect Hutchinson gave them. They probably just simply, at this crucial point, couldn't take the risk to dismiss him.And if they had, it is quite possible that the press might have torn the police to shreds and demanded heads on a plate.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2226
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I agree with you that may well have been the situation.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2227
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Yes Glenn that is a feasible scenario I must admit
given that pressure!
Difficult.
Best to you too
Natalie
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
G'day Glenn,
You've expressed the opinion that Abberline's interview of Hutchinson: 'wasn't done properly.' Well maybe it was, but Abberline chose not to mention certain things in his official report.
The reason why I believe Hutchinson's statements were withheld a little, (from the eyes of the public at least), is that in Hutchinson's official statement he said that his suspect had a pale complexion and a slight moustache, yet when he spoke to the reporter of the 'Times' his suspect had a DARK complexion and I remember reading one report that said the suspect had a had a HEAVY moustache.
The name HUTCHINSON disappeared too quickly from the investigation - just as quickly as it appeared, and I don't believe that Abberline was naive and gullible!
LEANNE |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3790
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
Firstly, I can't see why information regarding Hutchinson's statement should be withheld from people within the force or from Abberline's superiors. This is pure speculation and is not supported by anything whatsoever, and frankly I can't see what the point would be.
As for the diverging descriptions of the man to the papers compared to the statement, this is not unusual. We can see this on several occasions.
Secondly, all that doesn't explain the fact -- once again -- that several elements in Hutchinson's statement does not add up and appears constructed.
As for naive and gullible -- well, as I said, I don't think he was no better no worse than his contemporaries.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 256
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:14 am: |
|
Interesting thread! I get the feeling though that maybe only How and I know how it goes in these neighborhoods. To think a well dressed man is going to be a vic is a crock. It depends on the man. He had a "stern look"? You bet! If you have to spend any time in a ghetto you got to get the attitude. If you act like you want trouble you wont get it. If the bad guys think youre nuts enough to hurt them they go elsewhere. You think Al Capone dressed down in Cicero? Or Bugs Segal or Meyer Lansky did in Hells Kitchen? In the mid 70s a company I worked for sent me to Pinelawn Mo., a suburb of St Louis. This was a Black neighborhood and I didnt see a white girl for 6 weeks. They gave me a room mate named Dewayne. He was from Chigago, a Viet vet whos regiment was shot up by friendly fire while parachuting in Nam. He had a record and showed up for training with a Cadillac painted with daisys and "DeWaynie" printed on the drivers side door. I had just come from Tampa where I was an Iron worker. In two weeks DeWayne had set up a network of girls in East St Louis. He was a pimp in Chicago and knew the ways of the ghetto, fact is because of his war record the Chi authorities were giving him a second chance. Attitude is everything. One nite I was the only white face in an East St Louis bar playing 9 ball for 5 bucks a ball. I came in with 38 cents in my pocket. I left with over 200 bucks, and no one pissed with me. I have no doubt that Hutch saw the guy he described. And maybe his interest in MJK was professional, but I have my doubts he was the ripper. For what its worth...Brad.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2228
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Hi Brad,
Please lets have more of this-its what has been lacking here.Its true we can"t quite see the equivalent "fashions" in Victorian times for young "disaffected" men though we know there were High Rip gangs etc.We don"t know what they considered cool,how someone like Hutchinson say
viewed the police,how vulnerable he might just have felt going to them with his alarming story.
As for the ripper,whoever he was, I doubt he had an ounce of fear when he was acting out his murderous compulsions.As I said above,if the ripper thought a display of gold might secure him his girl then he would have given gold the full works! I think he would have done whatever it took -and those who got in his way would have had to watch out!It wasn"t the other way round-this guy took on "everyone"- the East End,the police, the international press even---
and he got away with it!
Natalie |
John Dow
Police Constable
Username: Johnmdow
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Abberline was an Inspector in the police force, risen through the ranks. In Victorian England, I don't believe you achieved the rank of Inspector by being "naive" and "gullible". |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3791
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
John,
In the 19th century you didn't necessarily rise through ranks because of your competence but because of other things.
I know several examples of high ranking officers in other areas during this time period that were complete idiots. Timeserver systems ruled to a much larger degree than in our days.
I am not trying to discredit Abberline, I am only saying that his almost indisputable stardom status is extremely over-rated. I believe he was a hard worker, an enthusiast and had a good relation to those in higher ranks above him (which was extremely important in those days if you wanted to get anywhere in rank), but I don't see any signs whatsoever of him being paticularly smart or being a great judge of character. On the contrary.
I've said now several times we must take into account that the procedures connected with police investigations and witness interrogations were quite different than those in our time and was not at all that developed as they are today. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in loads of cases from this time period. Witness and suspect interviews held a terrible and almost pathetic standard. I think this is clearly visible in how Hutchinson's story was handled.
The police were in a state of panic, and had to check up on every suspect that were delivered to them. It is quite possible that Hutchinson got off the hook, not only because he delivered a suspect to them and said what they wanted to hear, but also because he possibly could provide an alibi for the dates of other Ripper murders. In any case, one can imagine that if they had dismissed Hutchinson's Jewish suspect under those pressured circumstances after and during the Kelly murder, and the papers had found out about it, they would have been stoned in the press and it is quite possible a few heads would have rolled. I believe the police were under immense pressure from different directions at this time. Probably in order to save his own skin, Hutchinson gave them a very detailed description of a suspect that fitted the expectations of the press and the general public, and they jumped on the boat.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Hutchinson's story does not add up on several points; parts of it are more or less illogical, and since the police obviously took Hutchinson's story seriously in spite of the obvious anomalies and inconsistencies it contained, I can only reach the conclusion that the police (including Abberline) were either extremely desperate, victims of their own lack of developed techniques or just simply naive -- or probably all of that together.
Reading Hutchinson's story it is suggestive that he lied through his teeth and constructed most of it, since it contains a number of strange unexplainable details that don't add up with reason. If Abberline's report could have cleared up those question marks, we possibly wouldn't have had any problems with it today.
I don't think Abberline was any worse than his contemporaries but considering the 1880s' general knowledge and quality of proper procedure -- compared to modern standards -- that doesn't really tell us much. In my opinion, he was certainly no genius standing far above the others in competence, and to be frank, he doesn't seem to have been that hard to convince in the interview room. People tend to forget that this was 1880, not 1980.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
RE Abberline's veracity and respect from peers:
http://casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_observer/elo920611.html |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3792
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Well, yes..., such expresses of judgement from 1892 doesn't tell us that much.
That was by their standards -- not ours. How he was regarded by his contemporaries is as I see it of little validity if the developments and techniques were not refined enough.
Clearly they managed to make some mistakes here and there anyway.
I am actually almost more impressed by the thorough approaches of the City of London police force than I am of Abberline and the Met.
Just my opinion, though.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
The problem is that you can't judge a 19th century guy by 21st century standards--that's hindsight. Just like some 23rd century guy shouldn't be able to judge you because you don't apply the Glok-Stockholm Approach or some other technique that hasn't been discovered or isn't currently en vogue yet. Now imagine that only 10 of your 3700 posts survive into the 23rd century--think of someone trying to form a picture of you from ten of your scattered posts from 2003, for example.
Record's incomplete. Maybe there was some intangible in Hutch's testimony that impressed Abberline, something that doesn't translate in what we have in the written record. Some police work is intuitive.
Cheers,
Dave |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Hey George,
I never considerd that GH may have wanted to rob Kelly's client after he left. I dont believe that human nature has changed that much. This kind of activity happens all the time in South Florida. The thief figures that a john is an easy target. They figure the john would never go to the police and report the robbery.
I doubt he was concerned with Kelly's safty. In my opinion George was looking for something. He may have wanted to mug the client, or he may have been hoping that Kelly would come back out so he could ask her for a favour. He wanted something that is the only reason he hung around.
I believe George Hutchinson's discription. I dont believe his whole story. I have a hard time believing he was standing outside Kelly's place just because he was concerned for her. There has to be more to the story.
I dont think that Kelly was killed that early. I think she was killed after 3:30 George's man would have to have waited over an hour after entering Kelly's place before he killed her.
Your Brad |
Ben Holme
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Dear all,
While I am of the opinion that Hutchinson's description of Kelly's last client was, in all likelihood, a fabrication, it would be fair to say that his observations are at least partly corroborated by Sarah Lewis' testimony. Having alluded to the loitering presence of the "short, stout" man (probably Hutchinson), she then says:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."
There can be little doubt, surely, that Lewis had observed Mary Kelly with the Jewish, gold-chain wearing suspect? Moreover, does this not bolster the theory that Hutchinson was telling the truth after all?
As a new entrant to this discussion forum, I am probably covering old ground, but opinions would be gratefully received nonetheless.
Best Regards,
Ben
(Clinging to the hope that this message isn't lost in "the queue") |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
The more you look into Hutchinson's story the fishier it gets.
"I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain" , he says in his statement to the press.
He fancies.
Why does his photographic memory suddenly fail on him?
On the night of the murder - in poor light - he manages to notice the tiniest details of the man's appearrance but less than 36 hours later on Sunday morning in Petticoat Lane - in broad daylight - he is suddenly not sure.
But even more baffling is his behaviour after he spots the possible murderer.
Mary Kelly has been cut into pieces, and George Hutchinson fancies he sees the man who accosted her on the night of the murder.
So what does he do?
Does he cry murder, does he raise hell?
No he doesn't.
But then, if he was not sure it was him, does he at least take a closer look and follow the man?
No he doesn't.
George Hutchinson does nothing.
Even if his concern for Mary wasn't as warm as some people tend to think, the thought of a reward, poor man that he was, might have crossed his mind.
But he doesn't do a thing. His insatiable curiosity that he displays on the night of the murder has suddenly vanished into thin air.
George Hutchinson, bullshit artist, if there ever was one.
Martin
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Hi Adam.
We may have had our disagreements over George Chapman, but I totally agree with everything you've said about Hutchinson.
I also agree with you about the well-dressed stranger that Hutch saw with Kelly. I feel that anyone who had attempted to relieve him of his jewellery, may well have got the shock of their lives.
Good post Adam.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
BenH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Dear all,
While I am of the opinion that Hutchinson's description of Kelly's last client was, in all likelihood, a fabrication, it would be fair to say that his observations are at least partly corroborated by Sarah Lewis' testimony. Having alluded to the loitering presence of the "short, stout" man (probably Hutchinson), she then says:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."
There can be little doubt, surely, that Lewis had observed Mary Kelly with the Jewish, gold-chain wearing suspect? Moreover, does this not bolster the theory that Hutchinson was telling the truth after all?
As a new entrant to this discussion forum, I am probably covering old ground, but opinions would be gratefully received nonetheless.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Dan wrote:
"The idea that the police would have put misleading information into reports that were only intended for other police and not the press or the public is simply absurd."
Absurd unless police were suspecting one of their own. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
RJ,
P.S. To Mrs.. Comer on the other thread, I would encourage her to read Dr. Hocking. Digestion doesn't stop after death. The easily digested fish was clinging to the intestines. Mary Kelly was murdered at 9:20 a.m +/- 7 1/2 mintutes.
Perhaps so, but I'm not sure that a digestive tract separated from its blood supply - indeed a digestive tract entirely separated from its owner by several feet! - would continue to function for very long. The cells of the stomach and pancreas, responsible for generating acids and enzymes necessary for protein metabolism, would soon drown in their own carbon dioxide and waste products without a blood supply to refresh them.
Besides, the fact the food was "clinging to the intestines" means that it was scattered on the *outside* of the intestines and I seem to recall that one doctor's report stated that fragments of food were also found in the body cavity - highly suggestive of the stomach having been cut in the process of its removal. Based on this, it sounds unlikely that the "easily-digested" fish had long passed through Mary's stomach, let alone have had a chance to be digested, when she was eviscerated by her killer.
Once the evisceration was complete, and the abdominal contents distributed around the body, the bed and the bedside table, digestion would have ceased relatively rapidly. The fact that there were undigested fragments of food coating the *outside* of the intestines and clinging to the body cavity should come as no surprise therefore, and offers precious little clue as to the time of death. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Do we know for a fact that Abberline interviewed Hutchinson by himself? Even if he had done so, certainly other detectives would have viewed his report. Is it reasonable to assume that if others had their doubts about the truth of Hutchinson's story they would have said "Fred, this guy's description is just too detailed to be true" or would they have remained silent with their doubts for some reason? Abberline's abilities as a detective are debated on these boards but even those who believe he was a competent and effective detective seem to feel that he took a naive pill with regards to Hutchinson's story. Assuming that others expressed contrary opinions on the validity of Hutchinson's story, what can we conclude about Abberline's actions?
|
fjl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
I think this has been discussed until folk are blue in the face.
a) Hanging about, cap to one side, fag in his ear, like an east End neer do well, simple.
b) Abberline's lookout
c) Nosey Parker
d) So intrigued by the sight of Lord Snooty that he followed him up the road, convinced he'd spotted Spencer Churchill.
Not much point in the discussion without evidence.
........... not sure he was a victim of J the R.
|
MattyB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hello one and all,
Clearly something is 'not right' with Hutchinson's testimony. We have many other 'witnesses' to 'the Ripper', but all of them provided only the sketchiest of details. Along comes our friend George with the kind of description you'd expect someone to provide of a close friend or family member. This in itself is suspicious; Hutchinson made his statement too good!
It is also weird to go and hang around outside someone's lodgings for 45 minutes in the middle of the night. Couple this with the fact that, as has already been pointed out in respect of the finery on display by Hutchinson's suspect, he was hanging around outside someone's lodgings for 45 minutes in Dorset 'don't go there unless you want to be relieved of all your possessions' Street of all places! According to contemporary reports, this was potentially suicidal.
Sure, you might be concerned about someone and watch closely as they walk away or perhaps even follow them, but to actually stand outside a building for that length of time is, based on what I've seen on Crimewatch UK of the behaviour of members of the public who see something suspicious, very rare. Maybe George was just exceptionally caring, or maybe he's just not being totally honest.
I must admit that I have wondered if George's decision to suddenly come forward (after the inquest) might not have had something to do with the announcement that anyone but the actual killer would be pardoned if they came forward with their inside information. I forget the exact date of that announcement so I could be wrong, but if it was before George appeared it's interesting, isn't it? Could he have been the 'look-out' that has often been discussed by Ripperologists?
One way or another, George is not telling us something. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
RJ,
Re your pig experiment - please note that it's not so much the *acid* in the stomach that digests protein, it's the *enzymes*, which need the highly acidic surroundings in which to work. Granted, the hydrochloric acid in the stomach "softens up" the protein a bit, but it's the protease enzymes rennin and pepsin that do the hard graft of digestion. Deprived of an oxygen supply via the blood, the exocrine cells that produce the acid, rennin and pepsin wouldn't continue to do so for very long.
To replicate the Miller's Court conditions more accurately, one would have to at least puncture or rip open the pig's stomach and dump it on a table in a (fairly cold?) room. Oh, and don't forget to scatter some of the stomach contents over the outer surface of the duodenum and elsewhere as well.
Our poor porcine friend now has a leaky stomach deprived of its blood supply, with most of its gastric juices rapidly drying up or draining away. Under these circumstances I think you'd find that our pig's fish supper would appear to remain "partly digested" for several hours, if not a couple of days.
And there's me just had bacon for dinner!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
