|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 817
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:31 am: |       |
Rosey,
Had a look at Georges statement last night.
As we all know it seems to me as if Badham wrote the statement. Ok there.
It seems as if George signed the statement...no worries.
The deleting of the word dark seems to have taken place at the time and by Badham. There is no alternative word just a continuation.....not a huge problem.
But, and this does worry me, I feel Insp Ellisdon deleted 'Ten Bells' and inputted 'Queens Head'. Now I may have the wrong culprit but it does beg the questions when was it altered and why?
You're right, Tis odd...very odd.
Monty
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:56 am: | |
Hi monty,
You are right, very odd, am I right in assuming the 'Queens head' was on the route hutchinson statement refers to , and 'The Ten Bells' clearly is not.
Therefore , it could have been pointed out to hutchinson , Dont you mean the 'queens head'?.
or the statement was invented by the police, and hutchinson saw kelly with a man, but not in the area that was stated, and the police, became aware of the error, and deleted 'Ten Bells'.
It would not surprise me in the slightest, if the statement was invented, to give the culprit a false sence of security, they would hardly disclose a accurate description, of the perpretrator, for he would simply go to ground , or completely alter his appearance, which would be of no help to the frustrated police.
The only certain fact is Hutchinson saw kelly with a man, on the morning of her death, i suspect he was respectably dressed, but the meeting at Flower and Dean street, and the trek back to her room from thrawl street, may have been made up.
Richard. |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:09 am: | |
Hi all,
At the risk of posting something that the diarists would be proud of, are we absolutely certain that the signatures at the bottom of the statement are those of George Hutchinson?
Obviously they should be, but most peoples signatures do not vary greatly from one to the next - once you've done it a few times the path that the pen takes over the paper becomes second nature.
The three signatures on the statement, however, do vary more than you might expect. We have two Georges and one Geo. And all three capital H's are different.
The handwriting of the signatures is not that different to Sgt Badham's, who himself displays the peculiar habit of forming his capital H's in a variety of different ways.
Are there any handwriting experts in the house?
David |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 819
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
Richard, David,
Richard,
Heck yes, it could have been pointed out to him that the 'Bells' wasnt on the route. But I'd have thought it would have been done at the time, either before putting it down or just after...which would be done in Badhams handwriting of course....but its not. So to me, that would indicate it was altered at a later stage.
David,
Just came from the Forum.
The signature question jumped out at me last night. It seems to me that Badhams style and Georges are very similar. Id even go as far to say Badham signed it on behalf of Hutchinson. Which is a no no. If George cannot write then his mark should have been made and Badham should have countersigned (and dated it) as a witness that George did indeed put his mark upon the doc.
This statement isnt right at all...but then again, altering statements was all the rage (up until those glorious days of 1970s and beyond) and I have a hunch that some of the statement isnt quite as honest as it should be. Frank asked a wonderful question a few months ago. Why would Hutchinson be heading north up Commercial St PAST the Victoria Homes?
Something isnt right at all. Id call in Hutchinson again if I was Abberline.
Insp Monty...oooh, no no, Chief Inspector...right, "Fred....in my office...NOW !
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi Monty,
So Bob Hinton's George Hutchinson, (and Melvyn Fairclough's for that matter) could be back in the running?
I wonder what Bob makes of the idea that Hutchinson didn't sign the statement himself - Bob, are we clutching at straws or are you back in business?
David |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:53 am: | |
Hi All,
Anyone who knew the one woman killed inside her own home, and the one most severely mutilated in the series thus far, would be risking his freedom and his life by going voluntarily to the police – at any time – and admitting to knowing her well and lurking in the court outside her room for 45 minutes, just a short time before her body was discovered. Since I believe MJK was more likely just another victim of a serial killer who targeted prostitutes in general, rather than the victim of a murderer who was stalking her in particular, I have to wonder how GH can really fit in here.
I just find it a bit of a stretch that the ripper would make such a rubbish choice of victim, after his mini-break during October, and put himself at this much risk, and expect to get away with it when coming forward to account for himself. Just like my objections to the Barnett theory, I can’t see the police letting go their grip on GH, with his mighty suspicious account of his doings that night, and his over-the-top description of the man he claimed could have been in there slaughtering MJK while GH was kicking his heels outside.
I can’t see them letting go their grip on GH – unless they were somehow convinced that he had only felt compelled to come forward because he had been up to some dodgy activity that night (I still think he may have been trying a spot of bullying after Barnett’s departure), and had been sh*t scared of ending up suspected, or even fitted up for a hanging offence, had he tried to keep a low profile.
I can well imagine the police humouring GH while checking out his movements on the nights of the previous murders, deciding he wasn’t their man, and finally concluding that fear had caused him to produce his detailed and unlikely description of MJK’s supposed final client – possibly in line with the kind of man he imagined the police were seeking – in an ill-advised attempt to create a distraction.
We don’t know much about GH, but he doesn’t come across as the devil-may-care ‘catch me when you can’ sort, who would butcher a risky victim, in risky circumstances, then wait a while before deliberately injecting himself into the investigation, fully aware of all the risk factors already in place, and finally adding risky lies about what and who he saw to this bulging risk portfolio.
I see him more as a petty crook, caught up in a mess not of his own making, who clawed his way out of a very unusual and potentially dire situation, in a manner not to be recommended.
But that wouldn’t make him a murderer, or the ripper, and the police evidently didn’t think so either.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 821
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
David,
"you may think that...I couldnt possibly comment"
Trying to avoid sounding like Patsy here but I feel George is worth looking at.....not saying he is our man in terms of Jack but I am saying I would suspect him of being Kellys murderer.
His statement, description, actions, reasons are all suspect. I cannot understand why the police didnt interview him. Maybe its as Bob says. Hutchinson being accompanied by 2 rossers was their way of observing him. I feel that if thats so then a covert job would have been more productive.
Bob knows the score...so does Peter by the looks of it.
George Hutchinson arouses my suspicion....no one else named so far does.
He was never out of the running for me.
Monty
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Monty,
Just to clarify my meaning, I agree G H (the witness) was never out of the running. But I thought that Bob's G.H. and Fairclough's G.H. had both been scratched on account of their signatures not matching those on the witness statement. But if it wasn't his signature .... |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 822
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
David,
Gotcha.
...then whose signature was it ?
Monty
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Monty,
You're teasing me now, aren't you. I thought we'd laid responsibility for the Hutchinson signatures at the door of naughty Sgt Badham 
David |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 828
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Rosey, David,
Its your fault....thats what happens when you plant a seed in my head and I have a little 'bordom' time.
It was something I never thought about before until you spotted it.
I agree, he should have been talked to further. Maybe he was and we just do not have the documents.
You sparked an interest....thank you.
Monty
PS Re Mug Shot. Damn right. Blotchy face...carroty tache....just like the picture in Faircloughs book, thats what im after but Whoa Monty....go into the interview with an honest and open mind !!
David,
I was being sar-car-stic !
I still stand by Badham.....am I the only one ?
Monty
(Message edited by monty on March 02, 2004) |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Wow this is getting complicated. Let me clarify. I have no doubt that THE GH did sign the statements. Anything else is just not tenable.
I identified GH as being born in Shadwell. I researched this GH very carefully and came to the conclusion he was the right one. There were many circs that mad me think so.
However I was waiting for the final piece of the jigsaw to round things off which was contained in the census for 1901 - and we all know how long that took to come out!
When I did get the final piece, a sample of GH Shadwell's handwriting, I compared it to the signature at the foot of the statement, and as much as I really wanted them to be the same, I had to admit that in my opinion they weren't. As soon as I discovered this I posted on the board that I believed I had been mistaken in identifying THE GH as GH Shadwell. Sob Sob.
However that doesn't alter the fact that I still believe the GH who made the statement was the killer.
If anyone is interested in what I found out about GH Shadwell, and why it reinforced my belief that I had the right one I will gladly post the info.
Bob |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 208
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi all,
Some other things to ponder regarding Hutchinson. They are pure speculation of course, but nevertheless…
It’s obvious, to most of us anyway, that Hutchinson lied when he told his story. I do however think that he would have stuck to the truth as much as he could in order to make his account as credible as possible. According to his own account Hutchinson travelled at least once to Romford and back and I think this is one of the parts he might not have lied about, because it doesn’t seem to have any purpose in trying to make the story more credible (in fact, it made it rather more incredible than more credible). So, if he was telling the truth about this, he might have gone to Romford on a regular basis, perhaps because he had family living there. Mile End Road/Whitechapel Road was the common way to get there.
At about 2:30 a.m. on 28 March 1888 Ada Wilson was about to retire for the night, when there was a knock on the door. Upon opening the door she saw a man who immediately demanded money from her. When she refused to hand over any money he had no trouble taking a knife out of his pocket and stabbing her twice in her throat. An upstairs neighbour came rushing downstairs after she had heard terrible screams and saw the man rush to the frontdoor to let himself out.The man was about 30 years old, about 5 feet 6 inches tall, had a sunburnt face and wore a wideawake hat. Ada Wilson lived at 9 Maidmens Street, Burdett Road. With the help of Chris Scott I found out that Maidmens Street was located in the present Mile End Park and very close to Mile End Road.
As we all know, Mary Ann Nichols was killed at about 3:30 a.m. in Buck’s Row, also very close to Mile End Road and relatively far from where the other canonical victims were killed.
Of course, we're certain that Hutchinson at least officially stated to have just come back from Romford when he encountered Mary Jane not long before she was killed.
Although I'm aware there are plausible objections to Hutchinson as Mary's killer/Jack the Ripper, the idea of an opportunistic and inexperienced Jack returning from Romford entering a seamstress' house and attacking her with a knife, who on another occasion evenly opporunistically killed 'Polly' Nichols literally along the way doesn't seem that strange.
So again, pure speculations, but I’d say interesting nevertheless.
Take care,
Frank
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
Bob,
Thanks for posting your views re the signature. I can't help but admire your objectivity. I know that you posted some of what you found out about GH Shadwell a while back when you found out that the signatures didn't match (on the thread entitled 'The Real George Hutchinson?') - if there is any more that you can tell us I for one would be interested to read it.
David |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
How do we know that hutchinson lied, when he told his report to the police, the statement is too far fetched in modern day thinking, but my point is 'was this statement invented by the police?.
Lets use this scenario.
Hutchinson met Kelly in Dorset street , with a respectably dressed man, he observed them, and then they entered millers court.
He was concerned so he hung around for a period of time.
After kellys murder, he pondered with his knowledge, told people he lodged with of his sighting, and they advised him to report it.
On reporting this incident to the police, they had a special reason, because of knowledge they had received on the day of kellys murder, to suspect a better dressed person, they realized that he could have seen the killer.
so because they wanted him to assist them in patrolling the area, to try and spot this person, they invented a statement , and a sighting , to suggest to the killer, that they were completely off track, for several reasons.
a] Having such a witness like hutchinson, they were concerned that, by releasing a statement giving a full description, his welfare may be in danger.
b] by releasing an accurate description of hutchinsons sighting, the killer would alter his appearence, that his identity would be impossible.
to spot.
To sum up, tampering with statements , shows suspicious overtones, so I suggest, that the police, had their reasons, and the fact that Hutchinson received one hundred shillings[ five pounds sterling] for his cooperation, may be explained.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 211
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I’m not sure if I understand you correctly, so here’s what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong).
1) Hutchinson saw Kelly with a respectably dressed man.
2) Since the day of Kelly’s murder the police had reason to suspect a respectably dressed man.
3) So, when Hutchinson came forward the police realized he could have seen the killer and they believed him completely.
4) For this reason the police wanted Hutchinson to patrol the area, accompanied by two officers, to try and find the possible killer.
5) This is why the police invented a statement and a sighting in order to have the possible killer think they were completely on the wrong track.
6) But they also didn’t want the actual or full statement to be released because they were concerned for Hutchinson’s welfare.
7) Another reason for not releasing an accurate description of the man seen by Hutchinson was that this man might alter his appearance if they did.
If this is indeed what you’re saying, I have a few questions.
If both the man seen by GH and the man suspected by the police were respectably dressed, why wasn’t a description invented that was really completely different to that of the suspect, say of less respectable appearance, or perhaps of a well dressed man, but very minimally detailed - more like the descriptions of the other witnesses? That would take care of points 6 and 7 and the last part of point 5. They could have changed it into the actual or full description whenever they pleased later on, when the searches didn't yield any results.
Or why didn't they hold back the description completely, until they either caught the suspect or the searches with Hutchinson's aid proved fruitless?
Why was there any need for the police to invent a sighting when Hutchinson had offered them one?
Why would the police not only want to invent such a far-fetched description, but also build an incredible story around that description as well? Surely there had to have been a lot of men around at the police station who together would have been able to come up with a more credible story, a story that would also have served their purpose? Because I don’t believe the statement is only too far-fetched in modern day thinking, I think it was far-fetched in those days too.
Take care,
Frank
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 830
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 3:28 am: | |
Bob, Frank,
Bob,
I second David. Im interested. POST IT !!
Frank..Frankie..Frank..Frank,
Oh how I have picked through your last two posts looking for something to pull you up on.
I cannot.
Id maybe throw in the Poplar event also. Not everyones cup of tea but there you go.
Monty
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 4:13 am: | |
Hi Frank,
The point I was attempting to make is, it is possible that hutchinson saw kelly with a man of respectable appearance, and most importantly the man saw hutchinson.
To issue a description, that did not compare somewhat to kellys companion, would have caused the killer to become suspicious, and he would have smelt a rat, to not issue a description at all, would also have been suspicious to the mystery man.
By releasing a statement, refering to a possible different area, and by releasing a statement, that describes a different person, the killer would have assumed that kelly was seen by someone else that night ,resembling that description,and that the man that observed him and kelly together, did not report the incident, and that the police therefore were looking for somebody completly different then him.
I Should add this is pure specualtion, and I am just going by what I believe the police believed , ie, that the man hutchinson saw was mary janes killer.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 214
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Monty,
You know what they say, eh… forewarned is forearmed!
Take care,
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:56 pm: | |
Caz wrote:
"I just find it a bit of a stretch that the ripper would make such a rubbish choice of victim, after his mini-break during October, and put himself at this much risk, and expect to get away with it when coming forward to account for himself."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we only have Hutchinson's word that he was a friend of MJK's, right? Killing off a friend and then going to police later and admitting to being outside the room at the time does seem stupid, but that's not the theoretical scenario as I see it.
George as hypothetical Jack either: a) discovers this woman is in a room with a lock that can be jimmied from the outside and waits until a night when she is in her room alone and breaks in and offs her, b) does the typical go with the prostitute thing and lucks out and gets a room a room this time and then for some reason hangs around outside (hoping to see someone else discover the body? takes a break? runs out after she screams and he kills her, and waits to see if anyone comes to investigate before going back in to mutilate -- although the witness descriptions would be off), or c) goes with the prostitute but was never actually hanging around outside -- but a brief mention that someone may have been gave him the idea for his story.
So after the night is over, he's off living his normal life but then for some reason thinks he needs to try to get the police on the wrong track (maybe because he thinks he was spotted, if he really was outside for any length of time) or wants some attention. Yes, it sounds freaking stupid, but a number of serial killers have approached the police themselves for ego reasons or to try to derail the investigation.
So then he needs to make up a story... he needs someone who from this fake story would be expected to be the killer but not so directly that they ask why he didn't run and get the police. So it's got to be someone seen with MJK and then spending a long stretch of time in the room with her. Of course that means he'd have to know the person was in the room that long, which means the story has to be him hanging around watching. So why is he watching? Oh, he and MJK are old buds, that's the ticket, he was just sort of watching her, worried but not really worried.
If there were proof that Hutch really was MJK's old friend, I'd tend to discount him as a possible suspect. But even if he's not the killer I don't think his testimony that he was tight with MJK would necessarily be true. MJK as old friend asking to "borrow" money sounds like it could just as easily be some decent looking unknown woman asking if the guy was interested in purchasing her services.
Heck, from all the publicity MJK got (plus any potential stalking time the killer may have gotten) a complete stranger could do a fairly decent BS job of pretending to be a friend of hers... at least from the start. But then maybe at some point they'd realize he wasn't and stop taking him seriously as a supposed witness... he was, after all, not the one at the Seaside Home trying to ID a suspect, so the police at some point did discount him as a witness.
Yeah, I know, way too many theories. I'm just trying to be thorough. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi All,
It beggers belief! A man pops into the local police station some time after a well-publicised murder and states quite candidly, oh, yes, I knew Mary Kelly well, and I was there at Miller's Court, and within minutes of her time of death!
"I have da full woirks on dis goiy...Give me a couple of your best men and I will have the fiend in no time."
Our out-of-work labourer then takes command of the Ripper investigation...which leads nowhere!
Gosh, Hutch must have excluded an air of authority
to lead these hard-nosed coppers a merry dance?
Very odd. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Rosey--Little known quote for you. "It is a dismal dreary scene, presented here in the misty gloom of this November evening, and it is all the more gruesome and depressing from the revolting conversation of many of the people, especially of a line of rough-looking fellows who stand with their backs against the wall opposite the end of Miller's Court, smoking short pipes, chaffing the crowd, and bandying unseemly jests..."
--S.F. Swift In the Slums, 1889.
quoted by the historian Francoise Barret-Ducrocq in Love in the Time of Victoria
The "end of Miller's Court" was evidently a hang-out for blokes like Hutchinson. In a place like the East End, perhaps not overly suspicious that it was frequented both day & night? RP
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 218
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You wrote:
“To issue a description, that did not compare somewhat to kellys companion, would have caused the killer to become suspicious, and he would have smelt a rat,…”
I’m afraid I don’t see what you see. The only thing the description had to say was that the man seen with Kelly was well dressed, without giving much further detail. That would have done fine, so there would have been no need to give the very detailed description Hutchinson gave.
“… to not issue a description at all, would also have been suspicious to the mystery man.”
That would have been no problem. If no description would’ve been issued, the ‘mystery man’ simply could have thought that Hutchinson hadn’t gone to the police after all.
Take care,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
HI frank,
I can not argue, with that, at this moment in time I am concentrating on a very different approach to hutchinsons statement, then I have ever had in the last forty years, because of that I am coming over extremely novice, on my new thread 'Was hutchinsons statement fabricated' I have tried to explain my new thoughts. even tho it appears speculative, it at least to me is plausible.
Richard. |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
A couple of things.
First, Richard, you seem to give credence to the radio interview of GH's son. It mean nothing except that GH's son believed his dad. Now I know you are going to say, that GH lived with his son and there is no way, that he could hide his homicidal tendencies from his family. (If he was the killer) Or hide the fact that he is lying (If he lied about what he saw, or did not see) from his family. So by this conclusion, GH must have been telling the truth. But, I counter, didn't Barnett (your suspect) go on to live an ordianry, normal life after all is said and done? I really think that we need to stop bringing up the radio program and what it said. I will concede that if it was GH's son, that he truely believed his dad, if you concede that his dad (if it was GH) could have been lying.
Second, with a friend like GH, MJK did not need any enemies.
Has any other witness ever mentioned that GH and MJK were friends? Or even mentioned seeing them together? Did Barnett mention it?
I find it very coincidental that GH gives his statement after the inquisition.
If GH were JTR why would he need a motive? (I am not saying he is, but he has to be a suspect)
Serial killers kill for thier own reasons, not for reasons we can comprehend.
I don't know but there just seems to be something fishy about GH.
More late night ramblings,
Vlad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
