|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:06 pm: |       |
Harry,
I would agree that GH is the most obvious person to have killed MJK. I am unsure that makes him JTR. And just because he is the most obvious does not mean he did it. I do not understand why he is not more of a suspect than, say, Joe Barnett. He was in the area, at the time, doing what I would consider questionable things.
Vlad |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi all
Without repeating the above, really I can't see why there is such a comparative lack of interest in Hutchinson. He was on a crime scene at a critical time by his own admission (and verified by a witness), his story - to be charitable - is suspicious, and his actual identity doubtful. Doesn't make him JtR, no doubt there were many other possible nefarious reasons for his behavior. But, surely, he must be worth examination far more than some of the other suspects that have been debated at length.
Regards
Pete |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Vlad,
I am of the opinion that whoever killed Kelly was Jack the Ripper,so if I believe he killed Kelly,then I believe Hutchinson to have been Jack the Ripper.
If we believe Hutchinson's sighting then the man he saw becomes the logical suspect,unless another person can be placed in Kelly,s company after him.
If we believe that Hutchinson made up a story to attract attention,and that he neither saw Kelly or a man with her,then there is no evidence that Kelly left her room after arriving there at midnight,so her companion at that time becomes a suspect.
Neither of the above twosome can be remotely proved to have been Barnett,so Joe is out as far as evidence is concerned.Only blind faith seems to keep him in the picture.
Prove to me that Hutchinson's testimony could be factual in all respects,then I and probably many others will change their opinion of his guilt.
Hutchinson,s statement is the thing that sets him apart.It cannot be true.
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:57 am: | |
Harry,
I could not agree with you more. I do think GH saw MJK that night. He may have even been following her (I feel he was). He may have kill her. (I am torn on that) But it does not mean he has to be JTR, he could have killed her and made it look like a JTR killing to throw suspicion towards the Whitechappel killer, but he was seen, so he made up a rediculous statement.
What I do not understand is why the police believed him. That makes no sense to me. Unless he came clean with why he was there but that was lost or kept out of GH's statement to protect him.
More late night thoughts from a Seriously overworked mind. 
Vlad |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 3:51 am: | |
Hi,
I am baffled by the recent intrest, in accusing Hutchinson, of being a suspect for 'Jack'.
It is arqued that he came forward, and invented a story, that gave him reason , for being in Dorset street on the morning of the 9th .for he believed that he was seen being there.
We should therefore give the same credence to Schwartz, who by his own admittance, was running away from a scene of murder, could he not be in the fray of being 'jack', and he invented the whole incident of an intoxicated man,and a pipe man, and believing himself to have been seen running, gave the explanation why?.
Infact I can seen no reason, why hutchinson , and schwartz are not on a level par.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:10 am: | |
G'day,
If George Hutchinson was the Ripper and he came forward just because of the vague description that Sarah Lewis gave, then the Ripper was extremely weak and very foolish!
LEANNE
|
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:40 pm: | |
Richard,
I see some major differences between Hutchinson and Schwartz. One of the red flags concerning Hutchinson's testimony is the time that it is given. Remember, he approaches the police after the inquest. Schwartz on the other hand is interviewed soon after Stride is found.
While I don't think Schwartz's actions during Stride's murder are heroic, I do think his actions of getting away from trouble do seem reasonable. Hutchinson is inviting trouble by getting a very good look at Kelly's companion and than standing outside of her apartment in bad weather for over half an hour.
I am not saying that Hutchinson is Jack but he did claim to know Mary on at least a casual basis and we all know that police always check the friends/family of a murder victim first. Another problem is Hutchinsons illogical whereabouts after he left Mary's apartment.
To my mind, Hutchinson is on par with Barnett as a suspect, not Schwartz. I just think that Hutchinson's testimony smells real bad.
Leanne: If Hutchinson was the Ripper and did come forward, than it was effective not foolish because his actions have fooled a lot of people.
Warmest regards,
Rod |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi all
GH may have been JTR. But if he wasn't, two possible explanations for his behaviour might be :
1. He hopes to collar the posh man emerging from the Court drenched in blood. Big reward for GH.
2. He may simply have been a member of one of the vigilante groups in action at the time.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 239
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Hi Richard,
You wrote: “Infact I can seen no reason, why hutchinson , and schwartz are not on a level par.”
· Schwartz wasn’t seen at the crime scene by anybody who was officially heard by the police.
· Hutchinson was seen waiting near the crime scene by Sarah Lewis, who stated this at the inquest.
· Schwartz came forward very shortly after Stride’s murder and before her inquest had started and finished.
· Hutchinson came forward after the inquest had started, but more importantly, only after he could have known he was (officially) seen near the crime scene.
· Schwartz was on his way home when he saw Stride being assaulted.
· Hutchinson had passed the place where he usually slept after what must have been a 3 hour walk.
· Schwartz fled the scene for a completely logical reason: the assaulting man warned him off, both by his cry of “Lipsky” and his aggressive behaviour.
· Hutchinson remained at the scene for at least 45 minutes, despite the bad weather, despite the fact that he had walked the past couple of hours and despite the fact that he passed the place where he usually slept. Going straight to bed would have been the logical thing to do.
· Regarding the descriptions of the men he saw Schwartz’ statement was in line what could be expected. He merely gave some general features of both men.
· Considering the circumstances, Hutchinson’s description of Mary’s client was far too detailed.
· Schwartz told a believable story: he saw an aggressive man assault a woman, the assaulting man warned him off, he passed a second man who seemed to be with the assaulting man and he fled the crime scene. Completely logical.
· Even apart from his description, Hutchinson told an unbelievable story: he passed the place where he usually slept for no reason, then saw Mary Jane Kelly being accosted by an obviously well dressed man, he then followed the couple because this man looked out of place in the East End, but didn’t suspect the posh man to be the killer. If Hutchinson did fear for Mary’s well being, he could have prevented her from going with the posh man right then and there when they passed him near the public house. Instead he just follows, waits for 45 minutes, then ventures up the court as they don’t come out and after hearing or seeing nothing at Mary’s window he leaves, goes back to an in the meantime closed Victoria Home and then walks the streets until it opens again in the morning. Completely illogical.
This hardly looks like Hutchinson and Schwartz being on a par level in my view.
I would have finished with this post much quicker if I only would have had to state the similarities between the two. They both came forward without the police having to track them down and they both stated being near a crime scene at a critical time, but that’s about it.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Rodney, Frank.
All i was implying was, hutchinson, and Schwartz had no reason to come forward, and put themselves in the frame, for being present at the murder locations, if they were guilty of any crime, surely that would have brought attention to themselves.
To committ such hidious crimes, would have been a risk to the perpretrator, without presenting themselves to the police , with explanations, surely if the ripper had such paranoid, he would have presented himself after the murder of Tabram, or Nichols, or Chapman.
Barnett however, knew he would have been questioned, regardless if he showed up at the scene, after the murder, or not, and if he was the killer, would have to had enough gumption, to convince the police of his innocence, from the outset, therefore , if he was the killer of kelly, would have planned it accordingly, complete with night time alibi.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 491
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Folks,
To me Hutchinsons description doesnt seem that
outlandish, especially since Abberline probably presented him with multiple choice Questions:
A]So would you say he had on;
i a knee length coat
ii a long coat
b]and did you see a shirt?
c]a tie?
d]what colour was the tie?
e]did you notice any tie pin?
So if Hutchinson"s memory was jogged in this way
I can see a sort of "aided" description emerging.
I think Abberline actually said he put great store by this description and he probably tried to extract something really useful from Hutchinson.He may have even said to him "Lets see if we can jog your memory now" and this kind of prompting worked.
It has often seemed to me that Hutchinson"s description tallied with someone the police had already got a description of and were on the alert for.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 492
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Yes and as for hanging about outside I know if I had been in his position,knowing Mary Jane to be kind hearted[apparently]putting up friends etc as Joe stated at the inquest,I would have tried to bum a bed from her for the remainder of the night and would have thought it worth waiting outside for a while until her client had left rather than spend the night walking the streets.He had probably heard about Joe no longer being there
and that Mary was putting herself about again.
Not only that If those had indeed been my thoughts and I"d waited outside her place for 45 mins I would have been terrified to find out that she had been murdered possibly while I was waiting outside and would definitely have been very worried indeed about whether the police would have believed me.Quite apart from wondering if the murderer would now be after me too!!!
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 276
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Interesting idea about the "prompts". If that were the interview technique, it could explain the detail. At the same time, it's exactly that sort of interview technique that creates incorrect descriptions and false memories, making his description unreliable for us.
Studies have examined the "witness interrogation" process, and very subtle wording of questions can influence the confidence of recall; with highly confident ratings given to untrue events.
For example, you show a group of people a short video clip of a car accident. Later, during the interview, you ask 1/2 the people the following question:
Did you see a broken headlight?
The correct answer is "no", because no broken headlight was in the video. What you find is a few will say yes, but most will say no.
But, if you ask:
Did you see the broken headlight?
Many more will say yes, and be confident it was there.
It gets more complicated too.
If you ask something like:
What speed was the red car going when it smashed into the blue car?
As apposed to asking:
What speed was the red car going when it hit the blue car?
You get a higher speed estimate to question 1 than question 2. Not only that, but if you then ask the broken headlight question, using "did you see a broken headlight?", many more will say "yes" if they were previously given the "smashed" version rather than the "hit" version.
All sorts of things, and ways of phrasing questions, influence what people recall during an interview. And, once influenced this way, it's hard to get them to ignore this "post event influence". Elizabeth Loftus is one of the worlds leading researchers in this area. Based upon her work, if the interview with Hutchinson was prompted as you suggest, then all we could say for sure is that Hutchinson saw Mary with someone, but the details of the description are unreliable.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 241
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
You’ve covered Hutchinson’s detailed description, against which Jeff made a reasonable point, and you’ve covered his hanging around, about which already quite a few possible explanations have surfaced in the last few months.
What hasn’t been covered really is why he passed the place where he usually slept, the Victoria Home, after he just returned from Romford on foot, which must have taken him about 3 hours in cold and wet weather. He only met Mary some 175 yards further north along Commercial Street, which would take him about another 1,5 to 2 minutes. Because of the dimly lit streets I don’t think he would have been able to see her when he was just about to pass the Victoria Home, had she been in sight, let alone recognize her. Hutchinson’s story offers no explanation for this (either).
I don’t think he needed a place to stay due to the fact that he didn’t have any money. Because why would he have gone back to the Victoria Home after he had left Miller’s Court, which is what he said he did in the London Times and the Pall Mall Gazette of 14 November. He could have gone straight to the Victoria Home and to bed after returning from Romford at about 2 o’clock.
So, it seems likely that he had business north of the Victoria Home, other than trying to get a place to sleep at Mary's, which caused him to pass the place where he usually slept.
All the best,
Frank
|
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
Frank,
Good points all. I just can't get by the hanging around part and how Abberline accepts that part of the testimony so readily. It doesn't add up. I can only guess that Abberline knew something about Hutchinson that removed him from suspicion that we don't know. Or Abberline was utterly fooled and very desperate.
Rod |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 1:57 am: | |
Another thing I am confused about, who's word do we have, besides GH, that he even knew MJK, let alone was friendly with her.
And Scwartz was not seen and did not have to introduce himself into the mix. GH, or rather someone, was seen waiting outside the court, so GH thought it best to create an alibi.
The more I think about it, the more I think the GH was there for a nefarious reason.
Vlad |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 494
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi all,
Thanks for that fuller information on the way such memory "prompts" can mislead,Jeff and thus if that happened making the description far from reliable
Interesting Frank I agree but not necessarily dubious.He hadnt a cent on him [according to him].
He may have been hanging around to see if he could himself cadge some money [or borrow]from someone he knew.
Also I am sure the police would have checked him out as far as others in the neighbourhood knowing him -publicans people in the Victoria home etc and would have made a thorough search of the Victoria home .I think thats obvious.I still think he was hoping to kip at Mary"s and eventually got fed up waiting for the chap he had seen her with come out again.
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Frank
GH didn't actually say that he went back to the Victoria Home after his vigil, did he? He did say the place was closed, but I suppose it's possible that it was closed when he walked past it around two AM.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Hi Frank,
I agree on most on your thoughts concerning the witness testimonies from Schwartz and Hutchinson -- or at least I find them probable, especially as far as the nature of the descriptions are concerned.
However, regarding a couple of your points:
-- "Schwartz told a believable story: he saw an aggressive man assault a woman, the assaulting man warned him off, he passed a second man who seemed to be with the assaulting man and he fled the crime scene. Completely logical."
Well, believable and believable ... apart from the fact that no one else saw or heard anything that corroborates Schwartz' story. I think that is still something to consider.
-- "If Hutchinson did fear for Mary’s well being, he could have prevented her from going with the posh man right then and there when they passed him near the public house. Instead he just follows, waits for 45 minutes, then ventures up the court as they don’t come out and after hearing or seeing nothing at Mary’s window he leaves, goes back to an in the meantime closed Victoria Home and then walks the streets until it opens again in the morning. Completely illogical."
No it's not. Yeah right... like Mary Kelly would have appreciated him barging in on them and making her losing a client. I wouldn't think so! He would have been well aware of that that is exactly what he couldn't do. She had to do her business and he knew it, so therefore it is not illogical at all that he instead figured, that the best he could do is to follow them and keep a look-out.
The question is why he stood so long outside Mary Kelly's lodging and why his description of the man is so detailed and unlikely.
I still think Hutchinson had in mind to mug the man when he came outside (since he was in need of money), but got tired of waiting, and that he wanted to keep this from the police but had to say something (since he had been seen).
One could consider it risky, but to come forward with such a witness description and such an account of his own whereabouts, is risky regardless of the real circumstances. Any way he tossed the coin, he was in trouble nevertheless.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 21, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 496
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
,I think that if your usual digs were closed by the time you got back and you had bumped into someone you knew from say drinking in the local with who had ditched her long time partner was on the game had found a well off punter who you saw go back to her room with,you might be forgiven for hanging around waiting for him to leave in the hope that you might borrow "sixpence" or so to get you through.Hey, you might even get her to let you stay the night-where else could you go at that time of night?
Natalie. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:18 am: | |
Vlad,
Police are human,they make mistakes.They get overworked,dispitited and mentally and physically exhausted.That monday evening when Hutchinson made his appearance,they would have been all of the above.
They wanted a suspect and he gave them one.What they would not have given thought to,was that he was also giving himself an alibi,that of the other person on the scene.It is an alibi that is sometimes used,when a culprit know the alibi of being somewhere else cannot be substansiated,and they have to admit to being on the scene.
Chesney,(I believe it was him)used that alibi in the murder of Stanley Setty.
Aberline,I believe,through fatigue,made a snap judgement.He judged Hutchinson by the man,s manner and appearance,and not by what he was saying.Excusable in the circumstances.
Regards,
H Mann |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:34 am: | |
Hutchinson signed the statement,so he could have read and corrected any mistakes.If police influenced his description of Kelly,s supposed companion,it could only have been to Hutchinson,s favour to adopt it.It suggested a figure quite unlike Hutchinson himself.
Something else to bear in mind,although it was a rather cheerless wet night,Sarah Lewis would have only been at the most twenty five feet from Hutchinson as she turned into Millers Court,so she would see something more than just a vague figure standing there.
If one could make out the colour of a handkerchef at that distance,the illumination wasn,t that bad. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
If you wish to make a case against Schwartz,the basis being that he lied,by all means do so,and others can judge what you write.Do not just say he was on a par with Hutchinson,for as Rod says ,that is not correct.
No one is saying that he came forward just because of a vague description given by Sarah Lewis.To my knowledge,Hutchinson did not give a reason for turning up that monday evening.
Posters are more concerned with what he had to say.You either believe he told the truth,or that his statement was untruthful.
I believe he was being untruthful,and I have elsewhere given my reasons why,in detail.
When a person admits being at the scene of a crime,has the ability and oportunity to carry out that crime,and is believed to have lied about his presence there,he brings suspicion upon himself. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:28 am: | |
Hi Richard
But that is a major part of the problem with Hutchinson. The police did not put him on a level with 'Anderson's Witness' - 'the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer'. And remember, we still don't know who that was, except insofar that the identification relied on the offender being Jewish - that is not mentioned in Hutchinson's statement. I take it we can presume Hutchinson was not Anderson's witness.
Hi Leanne.
I made that point earlier. There had to be some additional reason why he came forward, whether JtR or not. We don't know what that reason is. Desire to cover himself, desire to insert himself in the investigation, desire to convince the real JtR he wasn't going to 'peach' on him, or something else. Dunno what. Perhaps we should try to work it out.
Generally :
To reiterate. Initially Hutchinson's statement was believed, then disregarded. When it came to be disregarded, did they then re-investigate Hutchinson? We have no evidence they did. We, however, can.
It is interesting that none of the descriptions in the MJK case seem to have altered Anderson's views (at least) on who was the killer - did they assume that none of the people seen was the killer?
I am not saying the Hutchinson _is_ JtR. I am saying that investigating him may shed some light on who was. Might even come up with some help for those who advocate other suspects. The title of this threat is 'Hutchinson knows the truth' and I am simply saying that maybe he did - or at the very least what he told the police was not an accurate description of what he saw and did.
It is a familar position of the Barnett supporters that someone who was in a personal relationship with the victim should be treated with a great deal of suspicion - well, from what I know of other crimes anyone admitting to be on or around a crime scene with no obvious purpose and with a suspicious or unlikely explanation should also be pretty high in the suspect rankings.
Regards
Pete |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Peter wrote:
"Without repeating the above, really I can't see why there is such a comparative lack of interest in Hutchinson."
Uh, I'm not sure that's a fair statement. There have been, what, four books naming him the major suspect? Plus he either tops or comes near the top on a number of people's suspects lists here.
He seems to have a number people very interested in him. They are just not as loud about their support of the possibility that he did it as other people are about their suspects. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
