|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3586
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:28 pm: | 
|
Hi Frank,
I knew that. Just wanted to make that addition, since Britton elaborates on this further than besides that particular case (if it now really WAS the Napper case he referred to, but I think there's a good chance he did). Just wanted to clarify that he's not just building the opinion upon that particular case (because I made it sound like he did) -- he has a lot interesting things to say in the doccy.
But so have a lot of others as well. And Martin Fido, with his very expressive poses, is pricesless as usual. No one can say the word "gash" like him. 
Whatever happened to that guy? Is he going to stay in the US forever?
Others that participates, besides a number of people from the FBI, and British culture historians etc., are prominent Ripper people like Evans, Rumbelow etc.
If you can't get hold of that 1st edition with the Ripper, I'll look around for possibilities to get it for you, if you want.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
If the uterus was the target in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, but it was left behind in the case of Kelly, then this is no more a "problem" for the Tumblety theory than it is for any other theory...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. RP |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
I suspect that Hutchinson and Mary knew each other, in some capacity, prior to this meeting. I suspect that Hutchinson was looking for money from Mary and a place to sleep (and maybe he hoped to be sleeping with Mary). Mary tells him that she is expecting a client, but at this point she doesn't know if this will be just a "session" or if the client will want to spend the night. If it is just a session, then she can offer Hutchinson a place to spend the night. If the client wants her services for the entire night then she can do nothing for Hutchinson. At this point (their conversation on the street), Mary does not know the client's wishes. She tells Hutchinson to wait outside. After 45 minutes, Hutchinson determines that Mary is spending the night with her client and simply moves on. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3591
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi Luke,
I know that SPE is not that fond of having his name displayed on discussion Boards on personal matters, so I am not particularly happy about bringing this up, Luke.
Let me just state that although he is probably the one authority on the Ripper that has the best knowledge of the facts of the case (which is why he is the most consulted one and why people are pulling his sleeves all the time and asks for assistance, I do not rely on anyone. No one -- not even Mr Evans -- can convince me of anything against my will and he wouldn't dream of it eihter. Such an agenda and approach would be is as far away from him as one could possibly get.
But I am afraid you have gotten the wrong picture, really. Actually SPE is one of the most unbiased ones out there. Although I believe he still thinks Tumblety is a plausible suspect (but not the only one, as far as i know), nowadays he does NOT favour or stress a pet suspect in the same way that many others do, and Tumblety has very much been passed on to other researchers for further examination. SPE has done his bit on that subject and as far as I know.
As I said, in To Kill and Kill Again he has -- regarding Tumblety -- clearly stated that "in the end if the day, I have to admit that his case is not proven". Can't get any more sincere than that and very few "Rippeologists" have the guts to admit such a thing.
Although I've never necessarily agreed with those choices of suspects that SPE has made, I'd say that the opinions from a person who've been many years in the police force weighs more (as far as analysing the case evidence is concerned) than the more or less corny ideas we get from the large majority of academic armchair detectives. So in that respect, he is the only one I DO respect (although I also to a very large extent respect and like the views of Paul Begg, whom I find very competent and serious indeed). That doesn't mean one must agree with him on everything and I don't think he would embrace that anyway.
As I said, I do have people that I listen to, but I can think for myself and draw my own conclusions. But you know, that is what meeting people is all about -- you get new inputs and you have to rethink things you originally thought was impossible. And then it is up to yourself to weigh the evidence and the value of what people say -- or how trustworthy they are -- and make your own interpretations. Not to on all counts take their word for it.
If you have any more questions on this subject, I'll be happy to take it via email.
As far as the Kelly theory is concerned, look at the post below.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/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: 3592
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi again Luke,
SPE:s support for the possibility of that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim was initially mentioned already in Evans & Gainey's The Lodger (1996) (in the comments to Alex Chisholm's ideas), so it is not a new thing and to my knowledge it had been slightly touched upon earlier than that.
The fact that very few authorities on a whole has not mentioned these ideas about Kelly in documentaries that much (including SPE), is because they haven't been asked about it; just a few years ago it was practically a non-existing topic and no one was ready for it -- even today the matter is still controversial, although it is beginning to get the attention it deserves, and they do give these theories a lot of space in To Kill and Kill Again to a degree I've never seen before. It is nice to see a documentary for a change where they dare to actually question the canonical five.
But again -- shouldn't this thread be about poor ol' HUTCHINSON?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Well...actually there is something to contradict Hutchinsons statement....
Fron the statement of Mary Ann Cox....
About a quarter to twelve last night I came into Dorset Street from Commercial Street and I saw walking in front of me Mary Jane with a man ...... as they were going into her room I said 'good night Mary Jane',she was very drunk and could scarcely answer me, bit said 'good night'...........I went out shortly after twelve and returned about one o'clock and she was still singing in her room.
Cox leaves again at one o'clock, returning at three o'clock when she reports Kellys room as quiet and in darkness.
From the statement of Elizabeth Prater
From 1am to 1:30am no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them
Sometime after 1.30am then,Mary Kelly leaves after having spent 1:45mins with a client and meets Hutchinson at 2am and asks for money?
His statement is very odd, sometimes he hears her speak & sometimes he hears him speak but never at the same time,he describes the man in minute detail and yet the 'parcel' he carries remains very obscure.The Kelly that Hutchinson describes sounds nothing like the drunken woman of two hours earlier whom Mary Ann Cox describes.
He also tells Abberline that he has given the victim money on occasion and that he has know her for three years.From his statement Hutchinson sounds to me like a man who is trying to establish intimacy with Mary Kelly in Abberlines mind.
As has been pointed out, the fact that this man did not come forward until 6pm on the 12th, which was almost immediately after the inquest was over, is very suspicious. Was he at the inquest perhaps? Did he hear Sarah Lewis give a description of himself?
He leaves at around 3:00am, after spending a good 45 minutes watching the court why then does he just stroll off into the night? He had his chance of a bed for the night upon first meeting Kelly.George Hutchinsons statement sounds contrived to me.
Mary Kelly was killed on the 9th, and all London had heard about it, and yet here we have George Hutchinson, who saw a man with Kelly and saw him in detail, not coming forward until all the evidence has been heard at the inquest 3 days later.The 'son' claiming that his 'father' was one of the many men paid to walk with the police just makes this even more implausable.
I dont think George Hutchinson saw Mary Kelly with anyone that morning, I dont think Mary Kelly left 13 Millers Court after she was seen by Mary Ann Cox at 11:45pm.I think Kellys killer had been watching her room and waiting for his chance....wether that man was Hutchinson we will never know but in my opinion Mr Hutchinson is,at the very least, a liar. |
BH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Excellent points, with which I would agree wholeheartedly.
I was perusing the pages of "The Ripper and the Royals" recently, and located in the appendices is a chapter on George William Topping Hutchinson.
What is the general opinion of this man? Is he:
- The same George Hutchinson who penned THE statement?
- A man who lied to his son, who then perpetuated the untruth that GWTH was the mas associated with the Kelly murder?
- Another George Hutchinson, living in Spitalfields at the time, who was ALSO interviewed about the murders? (George Hutchinson being not uncommon a name)
Feedback appreciated!
Ben
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
To be honest I try to steer clear of 'theory' books as much as possible because, more often than not, all they do is muddy already cloudy water.
This man had a reason for coming forward 3 days after Mary Kelly was killed that went beyond the 'he was scared because he was the last man to see her alive' excuse. The fact that he turns up almost as soon as the inquest is over is very very suspect.
I think he was scared yes, but scared that Sarah Lewis had seen him. Sarah Lewis does not name Hutchinson, she only describes him but Hutchinson would not know this...for all he knew his name was being witheld.
My opinion...he came forward because he was at the inquest and he heard Sarah Lewis describe a man that Hutchinson knew to be himself and he then KNEW he had been seen at the scene of the crime.
Why did he wait to come forward?
There is no doubt Abberline was,by the time of Kellys murder, under a lot of strain even to the extent that he would continue to walk the streets of Whitechapel after work, and on occasion, give some of these women the money they needed to get them off the street.
Hutchinsons statement must have been like a gift from the gods for Abberline....did he accept this statement in much the same way as George Oldfield would accept the 'hoax' Yorkshire Ripper tapes as genuine a hundred years later? |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:38 am: |
|
A lot of people make mention of the fact the cops or indeed Abberline believed George's story, but this reminds me of something I read about the Yorkshire Ripper in the book Wicked Beyond Belief.
I think it was detective George Oldfield or maybe Dick Holland I forget which one, that believed the Yorkshire Ripper was a certain cabbie whose name I also fail to remember. They brought him in for questioning a few times and every time it was under the "epithet" of "helping with police enquiries". They couldn't bring him in as a suspect because he'd be lynched.
In the same way I believe Abberline wanted to maintain Hutchinson's safety. If people believed for a second that Abberline doubted his story he would have massacred by an angry mob before you could say "Squibby". I think we make a mistake in thinking we're a lot smarter than the police of the time. Sure we have documentation of a lot more serial killers and profiles, but it doesn't take someone who's seen Silence of the Lambs to imagine that it was George Hutchinson's fear of being fingered by Sarah Lewis that was the catalyst to his telling of the story. It also doesn't take a 20th century mind to think that these facts could possibly incriminate him.
I suggest that Abberline hadn't completely eliminated Hutchinson from his inquiries but instead kept him on a short leash and maintained an eye upon him. And if George was Jack then this could suggest the cessation to the murders for a period, what with him being paranoid that he was being watched and posssibly thought the heat was off at the time Alice McKenzie was murdered.
Wintergreen |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
"I suggest that Abberline hadn't completely eliminated Hutchinson from his inquiries but instead kept him on a short leash and maintained an eye upon him. "
I suggested this as well on another GH thread "Why don't we just believe". It's a valid point...There is no reason Abberline could not have simultaneously tried to pursue GH's witness description, but at the same time have the police keep an eye on him indefinitely. And that has the nice bonus of explaining the cessation of the murders...until "Clay Pipe" Alice, that is...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4305
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Wintergreen,
Abberline very clearly in his report states that he believes Hutchinson. This report is an internal document, and it definitely says that Abberline genuinely takes GH seriously. Period.
I am not going to argue about Abberline's competence, but in 1888 the modern guidelines and methods for interviewing witnesses and suspects were still non-existing. Abberline was no better than any other policeman at the time regarding this matter and to be frank, he certainly isn't brilliant, since he leaves millions of questions unanswered.
Abberline was probably street-smart and experienced in that respect but he had as little experience as any other in performing witness interviews in a complex serial killer case. I have seen hundreds of poorly managed interviews by the police from the same time period in Sweden and the extremely bad interview techinque and ianalysis is in fact quite representative for its time. I can tell you, that none of these interviews would have been accepted today.
Abberline probably bought the statement because GH delivered a suspect to them in a very desperate and critical moment of the investigation, and dismissing Hutchinson's story would probably have lead to that the police would have been slaughtered in the papers or by the authorities. They had to check out every suspect people delivered to them and the one GH presented was particularly detailed. They really had no choice.
But besides that, it remains clear from Abberline's report that he personally puts GH in high regards as a witness and he never ever addresses the loads of strange inconsistencies and odd features in GH:s statement. I am afraid that is not something that Abberline deserves any praise for in my book, and there are other instances where Abberline's judgement abilities hardly speaks in his favour. At least I am not impressed.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 178
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You said that Abberline had no experience in performing witness interviews in a complex serial killer case. I fail to see how the type of case is relevant. Certainly basic police procedures would have been followed and basic questions would have been asked.
c.d. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi c.d,
In fact, I would have thought that with little or no experience of serial killers, the police of the time would have been more likely to stick to basic procedures and basic questions after each murder - they were trained for nothing else.
In more recent times, but before DNA technology could help, look at the shambles that was the Yorkshire Ripper investigation. That was a complex serial killer case if ever there was one, and their experience in performing witness interviews didn't get them an inch nearer sniffing out Sutcliffe than Abberline got with whoever Jack was.
The difference with Abberline is that we don't know if he ever got a whiff of Jack, so he may now be being blamed for nothing.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4311
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
No, a serial killer case demands quite a special experience, one example is how to distinguish murders that might look like being part of a series but might not be. This is quite a tough job and requires quite a lot of knowledge, gut feeling and experience.
And believe me, in a serial killer case standard procedures are as vital as anything else, if not more.
It is quite clear that on many occasions during the Ripper case, standard procedures were not followed as they should have been, but let's not forget - as I have said now many times and want to empathise - that I am here talking about police procedures according to modern standards. The Met police of 1888 were no better, no worse than any other police force in Europe at the time and many procedures were still in its infancy in 1888.
Caz,
Let me get this straight (regarding your comment on the Yorkshire Ripper investigation)... just because following procedures doesn't always help the case, do you imply that one can simply scrap it and that it is not necessary to follow procedures, like asking relevant question during an interview or not leaving big holes in the statements or questions unanswered?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Joe Dawson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 3:35 am: |
|
Where can the "I believe him" statement from Abberline be found? Is it framed with anything else?
Devil's Advocate now: Is it possible that GH was simply possessed of an extremely good memory and demonstrated it for Abberline? That would have tied in well with some of the criminal jobs he might have had. |
Stewart P Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
I am writing in response to a previous and rather distasteful post on this thread dated June 10 under the name Luke Whitley. I care little if the poster is 'NOT very trusting' of me, that is his opinion and he may have whatever opinions he wants.
However, I do object when he posts in a public forum justifying his reasons with uninformed and incorrect information. I am not the first, nor will I be the last or only, person to voice doubts over Stride as a Ripper victim. She may have been, or she may not. That is my opinion, to which I am entitled, and I keep an open mind on the point.
I do not know to which documentary the poster refers, I have done many, but I usually respond to any specific question and, as per the To Kill and Kill Again documentary I always include Kelly in that category. Anyone who knows me knows that as true. I do not try to persuade anyone to believe something that they do not wish to believe and usually only give the arguments if asked. My main advice is to keep an open mind and try not to automatically accept preconceived ideas and opinions. The idea of that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim is far from a new one and, indeed, I made the case for this argument in my book ten years ago.
Apropos of the statement that Tumblety could not have killed Kelly as he was in custody at the time and my 'unconvincing speculative comment that,' "Tumblety must have been out on unrecorded police bail." I have the following points to make. I have never used the phrase 'unrecorded police bail' as there is no such thing. All police bail is recorded. Having been a serving police officer for nearly 30 years I probably understand bail, in all its forms, much better than the uninformed poster. As the bail records of 1888 no longer survive then the record of this bail, if my conjecture is correct, was destroyed many years ago. As regards Tumblety's arrest and court appearance in 1888, all we have is the basic, and incomplete from the record point of view, court calendar. Interim police bails would not be shown on this calendar. As Tumblety was under arrest for a misdemeanour, gross indecency by force (carrying a maximum sentence of only two years), he could not be detained by the police, then or now, for more than 24 hours without cahrge or a court appearance. All the surviving reports appear to indicate that he was indeed bailed and then failed to appear a week later, on the 14th, when a warrant was issued. He appeared before the stipendiary magistrate on 16th November. But anyone who wishes to know the details of my argument should be able to find them with a little research. It appears that the poster hasn't even read my book, but still engages in speculative criticism.
Probably the earliest mention that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim was actually made at the time of the murders by some of the detectives working on the case. We know this as Bernard Davies informed a meeting of the Cloak and Dagger Club some years ago that his Grandfather was a young police constable, stationed at Poplar but seconded to H Division to assist in the Ripper hunt and who was told this by the detectives in question.
Any author who writes a book on a given suspect cannot possibly be totally objective and I would never recommend any suspect-based book to anyone as the best source for basic facts. However, having said that, all the material in my Tumblety book was accurate to the best of my knowledge and it should be clear when I am giving my opinion or speculating upon those facts. Every other book I have written on the subject is objective and not intended to lead anyone into accepting any given suspect. I might also point out that I had been studying this subject for thirty years before I ever found mention of Tumblety. I did not invent Tumblety as a suspect but merely fleshed out the name provided by ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild as a 'very likely' suspect. And he was at Scotland Yard, as a chief, from 1883 to 1893.
As for the comment that the poster is "always suspicious of Authors who are not unbiased, and out to push their own theories and suspects in books, for obvious financial gain, and a little literary fame", I find this not only ridiculous but also offensive. Is he suggesting that authors should spend much money on research and waste years of their lives writing for nothing? Is he also suggesting that their only other interest in writing is to gain 'a little literary fame'? Such comments are as naieve as they are insulting. |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Abberline very clearly in his report states that he believes Hutchinson. This report is an internal document,
Where could I find this report Andersson?
Is it on this site, somewhere?
Wintergreen |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 808
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:17 am: |
|
Hi Wintergreen & Joe Dawson,
I don't know if it's on this site - I don't think so. I do know that it's in the JtR Sourcebook at the end of the chapter about Kelly's inquest.
I can post the text of that document later today, when I get home from work, but maybe someone will beat me to it.
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)
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 305
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:28 am: |
|
Some people may be under the impression that serial killing is a modern trait,and that police of olden days had no experience of it.
Before the modern name was given,such crimes were described in U.K.as multiple killings,and the perpetrator as a multiple murderer.There are numerous references to it as such. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 810
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
OK Wintergreen & Joe Dawson,
I see that no one has beaten me to it, so here it goes:
METROPOLITAN POLICE
Criminal Investigation Department
Scotland Yard
12th day of November, 1888
I beg to report that an inquest was held this day at the Shoreditch Town Hall before Dr. Macdonald M.P. Coroner on the body of Marie Jeanette Kelly, found murdered at No. 13 Room, Millers Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields. A number of witnesses were called who clearly established the identity of deceased. The Coroner remarked that in his opinion it was unnecessary to adjourn the inquiry and the jury returned with a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.
Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 am. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased. Several arrests have been made on suspicion of being connected with the recent murders, but the various persons detained have been able to satisfactorily account for their movements and were released.
F.G. Abberline Inspr
T. Arnold Supt.
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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4322
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Frank,
Thanks for that. You beat me to it; this site seems to have had some server problems for a number of hours, so I could hardly post anything whatsoever.
It shall also be noted that a facsimile of the original report in question - with the GH statement attached - is included in the beautiful PRO facsimile box Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders, put together by Evans and Skinner.
Stewart,
Thanks for coming in and setting the record straight.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4323
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Sometimes I wonder if Luke Whitley and AP Wolf are one and the same, since they seem to share the same suspicious feelings towards authors and their motives for writing books...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
|
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