|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:56 pm: |       |
Hi Gary
Yes, I don't think that the posh man - if he existed - was JTR.
I've wondered whether GH was drunk at the time, and had fuddled memories of the event. But the reference to a man of military appearance seems to knock that one on the head.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 342
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Frank, had George come forward earlier and someone at the inquest given different testimony the police would have suspected something was afoot, questioned GH at length, discovered his true agenda, and more than likely would not have paid the reward even if his discription matched. By waiting until it was over, he had all the facts both from the inquest and from the papers and was able to make his claim sound a lot more credible.
Shannon |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Why not? He could have told that he didn't hear or see anything suspicious and that that's why he finally went away.
Hi Leanne,
An article in the London Times of 14 November reads that at about 3 am Hutchinson went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise. I assume that this would be the reason for GH to go away.
All the best,
Frank
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 470
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank
I can't really buy the mugging theory either, I just alluded to it in an off the cuff way. You make a good point about the description of the posh chap. If Hutchinson was a mugger he would not have given the description he did. It is possible that he did have money with him at the time of Kelly's request, but did not feel like producing it for her benefit. She might have been considered to be the type of woman who would take his money and then scream Jack The Ripper.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
GH gave an unbelievable visual description, but there doesn't seem to be anything in his statement about the man's voice. He only overheard a few words, but maybe we're entitled to draw the tentative conclusion that the man's voice didn't sound foreign - else, it would have been mentioned. In which case, maybe we can tentatively exclude Kosminski and Tumblety (though he's excluded by height as well).
Of course, for those of us who don't believe the posh man was JTR, this doesn't get us any further.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
If GH had indeed been after the reward money, I agree it would have been a good idea to wait until the inquest was over, so that he had sufficient info to make up a believable story. That is, provided that the inquest would not have taken more than a few days. However, all of the previous inquests had been very lengthy – the shortest having taken 11 days. There was no way George could have known that Mary’s inquest wouldn’t even have taken a day. In fact, based on the previous inquests he probably expected this one not to take less that a week. In that case, George had to wonder if he would still be credible when he would make his statement only so long after the murder had been committed.
You say the inquest and the papers would have provided George with all the facts about the case, so that he was able to make his claim sound a lot more credible. If your ‘reward seeking’ theory was true, then why did he do such a terrible job at making a credible statement? As you said so yourself, his account wasn’t very credible at all.
Although your ‘waiting’ theory explains GH’s not coming forward until after the inquest, it still doesn’t explain why George made up a story in which he was waiting opposite the entrance to the court for about 45 minutes between 2 and 3 am in the morning, a story which was corroborated by Sarah Lewis at the inquest.
One more thing to be considered is the question how real the possibility was that George would have been paid the reward if he made up his story. If GH’s description of Mary’s punter, albeit loosely based on several bits and pieces from other descriptions of the alleged killer, was a figment of George’s imagination, how big would the chance be that George would actually get his money? If it were a lie, his story surely wouldn’t get the police any nearer to catching the killer, nor to deciding whether Hutchinson's description was anything like the actual killer.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
You’re right in saying it’s possible George did have money with him when Mary asked him to lend her some. It’s just that to Mary he said he didn’t have any money, whereas on the other hand he implied (in the London Times) that he went back to the Victoria Home but found it to be closed shortly after 3 am, which would have been useless if he didn't have any money.
I think he probably at least did have money to pay for a bed, in case he found his usual lodging house or any other to be still open as soon as he had finished whatever business he had to finish.
All the best,
Frank
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi All,
As Frank says, if GH gave an ‘unbelievable’ description, he would never have been able to claim any reward money, because the real ripper, when finally caught, would presumably have looked nothing like the description.
Similarly, if he was just a publicity seeker, his feelings of self-importance would be short-lived if the ripper turned up the following week bearing no resemblance to GH’s man.
Therefore, if GH had his sights on money or glory, he either did see someone he thought could be Jack, and described him to the very best of his ability (and beyond, for added emphasis), or he must have invented the kind of man he truly imagined the ripper would turn out to be, but saw no one that night who struck him as suspicious.
I don’t see any strong reason to suspect GH of being the killer, but I can certainly imagine him coming forward to explain his proximity to the crime scene - and to describe a suspicious-looking man, or at least his own idea of a suspicious-looking man – for fear of something worse if he kept his head down.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Hi,
Hutchinson claimed, he was concerned about the womans safety, he was aware like everyone, that the ripper was on the loose, he was also aware that kelly, could be a target, and I feel, his only motives were concern, so he followed her to millers court, and waited .
I feel sure that if the man had left, whilst he was waiting , he would have checked on Marys safety, but after waiting for a long period of time, tired of waiting , he departed the scene, and when he was aware of her death, he debated to himself , what to do, on the sunday according to him, he told a constable, who seemed to ignore his account, and finally on the monday evening , he conjured up enough courage to report the incident to the police officially.
I can see nothing wrong in him doing this, and I feel we should , rather then condeming him, respect the man for having enough bottle to approach a frustrated police force, with his statement, especially, as it puts him in the limelight.
Richard, |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 149
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Hi Richard,
If Hutchinson was concerned about Mary’s safety because he thought the posh chap might have been the Ripper, then it seems very odd that he didn’t simply tell Abberline and the newpapers just that. Instead, he told Abberline he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch Mary and her client and he told to the London Times his suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but that he had no suspicion that he was the murderer. If Hutchinson had mustered enough courage to come forward, then surely he would have told everything, certainly when he had nothing to hide.
Another thing, considering the kind of relationship GH told Abberline and the London Times he had with MJK we may also wonder why, if he really was concerned for her safety, he didn’t warn Mary in the street, right after he had looked the man right in the face, for instance.
“…on the sunday according to him, he told a constable, who seemed to ignore his account,…”
In this remark there are two things I find questionable. First, the fact that he debated with himself for two whole days, as you suggest, before he spoke to a constable. Two days seems long to me. Secondly, I find it even more questionable that a policeman, any policeman, stationed in the epicentre of the Ripper’s hunting grounds, would have ignored such a statement.
All the best,
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"he was also aware that kelly, could be a target, and I feel, his only motives were concern, so he followed her to millers court, and waited . "
Because when you are concerned for someone, you wait around and do absofrickinlutely nothing but act like a voyeur. Rightttt.
"I feel sure that if the man had left, whilst he was waiting , he would have checked on Marys safety"
And if there had been anything to be concerned about in this strange little scenario he talks about, it would have already been too late to do anything for Mary's safety.
"I feel we should , rather then condeming him, respect the man"
The guy condemning Joe Barnett as a serial killer for no good reason at all is telling us to respect a man who is placed at the crime scene near the time of death and gives the most ridiculous explanation for his presence there?
Bizarre. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Dan,
There are three possible reasons, why Hutchinson placed himself opposite Millers court.
a] He was her killer. and may have been waiting for a client to leave her room , so he could move in.
b] He was marys pimp[ ponce] who was waiting close by, for her protection.
c] he was concerned for her safety, because he felt the situation appeared odd.
Summing up.
I find it hard to accept that he was her killer,and had the audacity to report himself to the police, when there was no need to, surely Mrs Lewis statement, could not have worried him that much, her statement describing the man she saw, was not condemming, he was hardly caught on cctv.
The pimp possibility, I would also dismiss, are we to assume that Hutchinson, followed kelly around all night, including being availiable at 2am, to ensure her protection?.
I believe the most obvious reason for hutchinson standing opposite the court, was twofold.
He was partially concerned, but he also was tired of roaming the streets, and was hopeing there may be a chance , that when the man he presumed was a client left, he may be in with a chance, of dossing in her room, until morning.
He simply got fed up with waiting, proberly assumed that the man with kelly was staying the remainder of the night, and so departed the scene.
In my mind , that seems the most logical explanation.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
G'day,
NUP! George Hutchinson was Mary's pimp! He waited for 45 minutes to get his fee, then left thinking he'd get it the next day! That explains why he gave such a detailed description of the man he saw her with, and why he hesitated to go to the police.
It also explains why Abberline was so convinced with his description, yet never said why!
LEANNE
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 154
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Regarding your last post: do you mean to say that the bare fact that GH was Mary's pimp explains why he gave such a detailed description of the man accompanying Kelly? How's that?
(I'm not saying here that he couln't have been Mary's pimp)
All the best,
Frank |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
G'day Frank,
I believe, at the moment, that GH was at the time, or in the past, paid to take notice of Mary's customers. He could have waited for 45 minutes because that was a 'job'.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 461
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Leanne,
When you say he was paid, what do you mean? This may sound like a stupid question but surely the only place he was getting money from was from his prostitutes which he could take anyway regardless of whether he was there or not. Pimps were in control not the prostitutes.
Pimps usually had a few prostitutes to look after so unless the others had all turned in for the night I don't actually see why he was paying such close attention to Mary's client. It was very unlikely that Mary was his only prostitute.
Sarah |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 7:26 am: | |
There are other possibilities.
1) He was a voyuer and wanted to go peek in but was seen by someone and did not want to look suspicious.
2) Maybe he was not the killer, but an accomplice to let the killer know when the client had left.
3) A thug, who ws going to roust Mary for the money the client paid her as soon as she was alone.
There are many possibilities.
I do not think he was worried about her safety for this reason.
If he went back to his lodging (whether open or closed matters little) he obviously had the money to stay there. If he had the money, he could have possibly saved Mary by lending/giving her the money she asked him for. Then she could have stayed off the streets that night. And quite possibly, he could have stayed there with her in a nice warm room (warmer than walking the streets all night)
GH is lying, Why I do not know.
Sincerely,
Vlad |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 373
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi all
Is it beyond the bounds of possibilty that Hutch was actually,genuinely fond of Mary,There was a 'bit of history' there and he held onto that rather dear,as did she hence the sixpence remark..she asked him because she felt 'comfortable' with him,didn't expect to be rebuffed or worse,after he said he had no money she did'nt seem overly upset,just carried on up the road and met the next guy...we all know what the next bit was..or do we??..Hutch tells us that they returned to Millers Ct,hanky buisiness etc. and then he observed for the ubiquitous 45 minutes...Hmmmmmmmmmmm Still think that there was a 'history' between M.J.K. and hutch...somehow it just feels right.
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Barring more sinister explanations (George as Jack), might GH simply have been hoping for a place to sleep? He says he doesn't have any money to give Mary, suggesting he's broke. She appears to know him well enough to ask him to borrow money from him. Perhaps he was simply hoping that when her client left, he could ask to sleep at her place. He might figure she would be finished working for the night so it wouldn't necessarily be a problem. After the client doesn't leave for 45 minutes, he leaves, trying to beg a room at his normal lodgings. Gets turned out, and walks the streets for the night.
This may be all to innocent an explanation to be appealing, but it seems just as plausible to me. I think someone suggested this before, but I'm not sure.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 2:40 am: | |
Jeff,
I Agree with that , he proberly assumed that as Mary was taking a client , back to her room, obviously Barnett was not on the scene, therefore once the client left, he may be lucky enough to kip in her room for the remainder of the night. as he proberly knew , she had a kind heart.
But after 45 minutes, he assumed, that the client, may have been making a night of it, and moved on.
a simple explanation, but I consider plausible.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 377
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
Richard-
This is all going on on the Mry's Guest thread too..am getting dizzy going between the two here!!
Suzi |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Going back to the original debate whether it was MJK that got murdered or not, I'd firstly like to point out where I stand in the whole thing. I believe that the body wasn't Mary.
Why? Because there's one thing that puzzles me. It appears that Mary had very long hair that reached to her waist which made her stand out. Now I've been staring at both the original and the superbly colorized picture of the murder scene and I can't see the lenght of that woman's hair. And if I can't see it clearly after a thorough examination, how could Joe have seen it if he only took a short peek through the window?
This could imply two things:
1) This is indeed MJK and most of her hair isn't visible as she's lying on top of it.
2) This is MJK and she had a haircut shortly before she was killed.
3)This is not MJK but a woman with the same eye colour and approximate hair colour.
I'd like to know your views on this matter as I haven't found a discussion about this anywhere on this board or on this site (my apologies if it has been discussed endlessly previously but I'm new to the case).
BTW has anybody tried to figure out the lives of the prostitutes MJK was known to lend her room to? I know that people have looked into the missing persons files, but have censusses been checked for before and after MJK's murder? If one of them isn't on the list after the murder than I'd say there's a fair chance she was the actual victim (of course it could always be a coincidence still). The name Maria Harvey springs to mind - I'm sure there was another name (I'm sure I read it somewhere) but I can't find it back right now.
I'm going to see if I can find something if this hasn't been done so already. In that case, does anybody know a good site to search for census info online? (Always handy for me to know anyway).
Birgitte |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"There are three possible reasons, why Hutchinson placed himself opposite Millers court. "
As Vladimir pointed out there are plenty more potential reasons. Don't try to pass your assumptions off as logic.
Suzi wrote:
"There was a 'bit of history' there and he held onto that rather dear"
Possibly, but we only have Hutchinson's word that there was any sort of history. If he's lying about other parts of his testimony he may be lying about that as well. If he had been stalking her and/or spying on her and wanted to tell the police why he was there after he had been reported spotted at the inquest, he could very well have made up the "wuz just looking out for my poor friend Mary" excuse.
Jeff wrote:
"He says he doesn't have any money to give Mary, suggesting he's broke."
No, that suggests either that he doesn't want to give her any money (whether it be a loan or a payment for the kind of services she was out selling) or that he made that story up as well. We know he had money because of his lodging situation.
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 416
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Birgitte
Maria Harvey..unlikely..in fact no!! but Lizzie Albrook,Winifred Collis(?) they're all in there when you start on the was it Mary or not thing!!
Personally IMHO I don't think that it was..am a great believer in the 'evidence ' of Caroline Maxwell..Have a look at the MJK or not MJK thread,have a read..be interested to see what you think...also Mary's Guest is good..
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 529
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:16 am: | |
Suzi & Birgitte,
I have always thought that the body found was not that of Mary's but I have expressed this opinion before and discovered that many people on here believe the body was hers. This obviously doesn't mean it was as none of these people on here were around when she died and none of them saw the body first hand.
This can also be linked into the pregnancy thread on here although that is confusing in itself. There were rumours of Mary being pregnant at the time of her murder and yet there were no records of the doctors who examined her noting anything about her being pregnant. However, this doesn't men it wasn't Mary as it was only a rumour that she had been. There are also other reasons I think the body wasn't Mary, such as, she used to let her room out to other prostitutes to get money whilst she stayed at a cheaper lodging house, since the rent was due to next day it wouldn't have surprised me if she had done this on that night. Also there are the testimonies of Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. I don't see why they would have lied. Of course some believe that she was killed after these sightings, which I don't believe. Caroline Maxwell said she looked sick and has puffy eyes, could this not have been because she had just come from the room.
I certainly found the dissertation entitled "Did Mary Kelly Survive?" which can be found at http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-desmary.html
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
