|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:08 pm: |       |
Hi Gary,
Who said GH had rounded up a stable, or even made a career out of pimping by that stage? It could have been a recently thought up sideline, when he found out that JB was no longer on the manor, and decided he might try his luck with a young woman he knew would be on the game whenever she was down on hers.
Love,
Caz
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 496
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Hi Caz
Perhaps Hutch was a casual pimp, or an aspiring pimp, if you will. Nevertheless, even an aspiring fancy man keeps his girls in line by physical force. The danger of running into Hutchinson would likely have kept MJK from spending her money on food and spirits if she knew she had to answer to someone as far as her earnings were concerned.
Perhaps MJK and Hutch had no real relationship whatsoever. When they ran into each other they both might have entertained the thought of robbing each other.
All The Best
Gary |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 162
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
The report concerning the interview is indeed the one that also dedicates one paragraph on the closing of the inquest.
Trying to make up a post that would hopefully get interested people thinking (with a critical eye towards my post), I must admit that I hadn’t noticed the differences you came up with. Of course it’s possible that Abberline would have been right into these differences, but I’m not sure because he might not have regarded them as significant differences, which is what I talked about in my earlier post.
I’m sure, though, that the Ripper wouldn’t have been fooled into thinking the police were on the wrong track by only these three minor differences.
All the best,
Frank
|
Mark Everiss
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Dear All,
In Victorian England a "pimp" was a rogue. It had at that time little or no connotations with prostitutes, nor did "ponce". The equivalent term at that time for our modern day pimp was "pander"
Yours
Mark |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 163
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Phew! Glad to see you made it through my long post. Fortunately I used a few commas, full stops and paragraph breaks! 
Seriously, whatever GH was (pimp, killer or whatever else), he had two options. He could have come forward to avoid suspicion merely by explaining his innocent presence then and there, or he could have taken it a step further by introducing a character that at least had to seem more suspicious than him. I believe the first option could produce more stories and would produce the more innocent ones, the latter had to focus on a suspicious character/JtR and would produce the more risky ones, from the teller’s point of view, because they had to stand out. The first possibility would have taken less trouble, the latter one would also be riskier, the more incredible ingredients it contained.
Basically, there’s nothing wrong with the theory you suggested, as long as the story told is credible and not suspicious. In my view GH chose the most risky option: he introduced a character who (more than) fitted what was generally thought about JtR in a story that was far too detailed, contained some contradictions and one or two things that didn’t add up, all of which made it suspicious.
“But 45 minutes later, assuming it must be an all-nighter, GH called it a day – if you see what I mean – rubbing his hands at the thought of slipping back between sun-up and the arrival of the rent man, and collecting the proceeds of all that time with the meter running.”
If GH really was Mary’s pimp who didn’t (want to) disclose his ‘job’ to the police, I wonder if it would have been a smart thing to come up with the obviously wealthy client, which would be yet another risk.
All in all, if I was GH, who was ‘only’ a pimp that didn’t want the police to know this and if I was not JtR, I probably would have chosen to tell an innocent story that would only explain my presence. But that’s just me, some 115 years later and not standing in George’s boots.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 164
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
If he could describe the suspect with such complete accuracy – his clothes, boots, moustache turned up at the ends, eye lashes, etc. – then why didn’t he give a detailed description of the man’s facial features, which I think were the only real features that would enable the police to distinguish him from the next man?
If the suspect put on other clothes, he wouldn’t be recognized again, if he turned the ends of his moustache down or shaved it, he wouldn’t be recognized again, etc. And I bet there were many Jewish looking men around, so giving the police a generally Jewish looking suspect wouldn’t be of much help, I think. Assuming GH was Mary’s pimp who had seen the suspect before, possibly many times, possibly some of them in daylight, like you suggested, it’s strange that he didn’t describe the man’s face in more detail, since GH proved to be able to describe other features in great detail.
As the basis of my post of last Thursday actually was your post of 17 January, I refer you to my earlier message. Like the point above, some of the points there don’t add up with your theory while the others don’t seem to add up at all.
All the best,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:27 am: | |
G'day Frank,
Don't you think that describing a man with a "PALE complexion" and a "SLIGHT moustache, then describing this same man with a "DARK complexion and a "HEAVY moustache, is a significant change?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I think I would have tried to find out where these changes came from, yes, but perhaps Abberline didn't find these differences significant enough in the bigger picture or perhaps he did find out, but didn’t put it in a report. It remains strange, because as I've said before, even your suggestion doesn’t explain these differences, or at least I don’t think it does.
Looking at the bigger picture, which would be the complete account GH told the police and (at least) The London Times, like I said in my earlier posts there are things that seem to remain odd, whether you assume that GH disclosed his ‘pandering job’ to Abberline or not. And the two differences you came up with are yet another one of those things.
All the best,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
G'day Frank,
I think a "PALE" complexion and a "SLIGHT" moustache, suggests an English man. And a "DARK" complexion and a "HEAVY" suggests a foreigner. Anyway they are exact opposites, and I believe that Abberline instructed Hutchinson to make the changes. Why doesn't that explain why no action was taken?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 166
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
My point was and still is that I don’t think the wealthy client, after the instructed changes, would have thought something like: “Phew, I thought they suspected me, having been where this Hutchinson fellow said he saw this wealthy man, but no, they suspect a wealthy foreigner with dark complexion and a heavy moustache turned up at the ends with a long dark coat trimmed with astrakhan, black necktie, in which is affixed a horse-shoe pin, wearing a pair of dark spats with light buttons over buttoned boots, with a massive gold chain displayed from his waistcoat. But no, I have a pale complexion with a slight moustache turned up at the ends, so, that's not me, they must be suspecting someone else.” I didn’t write this to be sarcastic, but to show you why these differences seem minor to me with the purpose of trying to fool the Ripper into thinking the police were on the wrong track in mind.
Besides, the "Jewish appearance" in his official statement does agree with the "He looked like a foreigner" in the newspaper article, which might be why Abberline didn’t find the differences significant enough to take action.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
We should remember the police, were at wits end, they were originaly looking for a person , who resembled a person of the lower classes, but if one looks at the events following kellys death carefully, and looking at all the evidence available concerning it, one can interpret, that since the death of Mary Kelly, they were looking for a different type of person altogether.
Now I will put a question.
If you were a member of the police force, at the time, and in a position of authority, would you disclose any new course of investigation to the press in full honesty, surely that would result in the killer, either going to ground ,or altering his appearence. which would be the last thing the police would have needed.
I belief the police altered there opinion of the killers identity, hutchinson confirmed their suspicions, but this was a wrong lead, and the number one suspect, Joseph Barnett, was allowed to escape further investigation.
Richard.
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 427
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
So Richard P'raps Hutch and Barnett were in collusion then..now there's a prospect,not as daft as it may sound..come on they just all lived in the same area..is it without the bounds of possibility that maybe..just maybe.. Joe or George put eachother up to this..covering up for eachother..telling stories ,making alibis??
What do you think??
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
G'day,
According to the 'Times' 14 November, Hutchinson said that he fancied that he saw his suspect in Petticoat Lane on Sunday Morning. Petticoat Lane was a market-place full of Jewish traders, and known for the sale and purchase of 2nd-hand clothes.
Wanting to know more about Petticoat Lane, I checked a Victorian London website and found a document about it, written in 1855. The last paragraph reads:
'The various public houses in Petticoat-lane, Harrow-alley, and elsewhere, are generally crammed to excess. Through the open doorways we look into back rooms, where some dozen men are always smoking, their faces lost in the clouds of smoke which emanate from their lips. These men are known to the initiated as Petticoat-lane fencers, or receivers of stolen goods. Patiently they sit in these filfy rooms, waiting news from their scouts, who they throw out as antennae to "feel the way", or for the appearance of the theive's confederate, who "gives the office" and tells where the booty may be found.'
It's a pity Hutchinson didn't say whether he spotted his suspect as a seller or a purchaser, and what he was doing there. I've often thought that his wealthy looking suspect could have been disguised.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 441
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
Leanne-
On the disguise idea.. I agree..it's just too much! Quite sure that Holmes in disguise mode wouldn't have gone to such excess though!!..It's almost as if Hutch's man wanted to make himself noticed! Odd?? maybe to draw attention from someone else?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
G'day,
I've written about the possibility that George Hutchinson was a pimp, so that's offered to future researchers of this case, now I wonder was he a 'booty-scout'!
Maybe we should move this discussion to the George Hutchinson thread!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 27, 2004) |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 450
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Leanne
G'day!!
Booty scout??????????????????
Start a new thread on GeorgeH as pimp!!
G'night
Suzi Oooooooooh God too short again..somtimes you just want to make a quick comment!! Must get off to bed now..still recovering from a loooooooooong weekend!!
Good to hear from you
suzi |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page