|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:28 am: | 
|
Hi,
Whereas a lot of people accept GH as being a very viable suspect, there are of course many others who do not.
There are many reasons for this, but perhaps two of the most durable are:
1. If GH was the killer, why did he draw attention to himself by deliberately going to the police?
2. He made a statement to the police which was accepted and they let him go. Surely if there was any doubt about him he would have been arrested?
These are two good points and I have been looking for a case where the guilty party did just what GH did.
I draw your attention to the Nathaniel Code murders. NC murdered several people in a particularly brutal way, however after his last murder he went to the police to give a statement and offer to help. It is arguable if he hadn't had done this whether he would ever have been caught.
One account of the murders states:
"NC approached investigating officers and introduced himself as the victims grandson, blatantly interjecting himself into the case as the FBI had predicted he would" ( Signature Killers Keppel and Birnes)
Now when they had his statement it was obvious that there were flaws in it, but the police did not arrest him, instead they let him go while they collected more evidence. Again from Signature Killers:
"Detectives sensed that NC statement was false and launched their investigation into his background"
It would appear that the police handled NC's case in exactly the same way I suggest that GH's case was handled. In GH's case of course it would appear that the search for further evidence was fruitless - in NC's case it wasn't.
Bob Hinton
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3829
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Bob, just to ask if you've made any further progress towards pinpointing him?
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 435
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Thanks for the information, Bob. Very interesting.
I haven't read your book (yet), so I don't know your take on it, but the only mystery that would still remain for me, however, is why Abberline said to have believed GH. Of course, this could have been because - like so many others today - he just couldn't believe that anybody would do such a thing if they were guilty.
Didn't you post another example of such conduct recently?
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2752
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
All good points.
At least as far as Mary Kelly is concerned, I keep him as very likely candidate (although I personally believe she was killed by someone she knew quite close, and we do't know if she and Hutch never knew each other that well).
Practically everything about him is suspicious in my view, everything from his loitering outside til his much too detailed and suspicious witness statement. I have always found his acclaimed reasons for coming forward to be thin and dubious, to say the least.
The fact that the police let him go and that they according their internal documentation seems to have believed him, isn't really much of a problem. It wouldn't be the first time that happened and certainly not the last; I guess the police at this stage jumped at every chance they got when someone delivered a suspect in their testimony.
And as Frank says, the police at the time might not have believed a killer of this kind to be able to come forward himself. After all, they didn't quite know what we know today.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Hello all.
There is no denying that Hutchinson's statement was extremely odd.
For me one of the strangest aspects is his admission that he stood outside the lodging house watching Millers court for 45 minutes.
If a nervous Hutchinson came forward as a result of reading Sarah Lewis' statement in the newspapers,placing him in the right location and close to the time of the murder,why would he put his neck on the line by saying he was watching the court for three quaters of an hour?
He obviously would have seen Sarah Lewis entering the court.
I think it is also safe to assume that he would have heard her knock and then heard the opening and closing of the Keylers door.
After all he was only situated on the other side of this very narrow street and any sounds such as doors banging closed would have been quite audible,as they"Funneled" their way through the archway.
So Hutchinson would have been aware that a woman saw him loitering,but simply passed him by on her way to Millers court.
There was therefore no need for him to admit he had been hanging about for 45 minutes and also no need to admit any assosiation with Kelly.
None of this seems to make sense comming from a nervous man that was prepared to keep quiet until a newspaper report forced him to come forward.
Regards,
Kane |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Hi,
Please dont accuse GH of murdering Kelly, it just is not plausible, all the guy did was throughout a weekend of hesitation, and prompted by others, decided to walk into a police station on the 12th November, and relay his sighting to the police, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a possible identification, by Millers court witnesses,which he became paronoid about.
One can understand his reluctance to approach the police, for he was actually saying he was the last person to see the deseased alive, and as the Whitechapel police were hungry for a suspect, he was putting himself in acute danger of being a major suspect.
I Will always maintain that GH, was simply a porn in this giant mystery, who assisted the police in a honest and genuine manner.
Sorry bob.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
I echo Richard"s words.To me Hutchinson was telling the truth.He was probably quite panic stricken when he learnt that Mary ,whose house he had been standing outside for three quarters of an hour shortly before she was murdered had been murdered in the most ghastly of all ways.I would have thought his first instinct was self preservation
and that if he had actually seen the ripper,he probably thought the ripper might be out to murder him too.So for a few days Hutchinson "lay low".When he thought about the consequences of police finding out he had been waiting outside her house and had not come forward then he was in a dilemma:both actions involved risk,but he came down on telling the police incase they arrested HIM and accused HIM on circumstantial evidence for acts of murder that carried the death sentence.
Also I really dont accept that Abberline and his other officers were so poor at their jobs that they would not have checked out Hutchinson-his friends,his clothing,his story,his movements and alibis for the nights of the other murders.
Finally I believe that Abberline was on the "lookout" for a man similar to the one Hutchinson described-in fact I know he wrote about police being persuaded that the ripper was from the upper classes "if you wanted to find him you would have to look to the upper echelons etc"
----this despite his statements on Chapman which
were clearly another area of enqiry.
Natalie
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Hi
Here we go again..
Nataniel Code all things considered is an interesting comparison...He killed Debra Ford (25) inside her own home stabbed her 18 times and cut her throat nearly decapitaing her (familiar eh)
He lived nearby and was a 'regular' shall we say...therefore invisible Which is wonderful Classic George Hutchinson stuff !!But there I lose the the plot a tad because he m
urders his grandfather and the 12 and 8yr olds belonging to 'a friend'....OK am still working on this one but at the end of the day Hutch is a damned sight more viable suspect because of his invisibility....It appears Romford or not he was a 'local' and that was that sometimes when someones a 'local' you actually don't notice if they're not there for a day or two hence invisibility
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1825
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Also Locals can be noticed in many ways...They're always here at 3 or something or I can always tell its 3 o clock when Herbert passes the barn!!!!!........This is something we all do but
reliability can be a tad wobbly at times I feel!
Was it Tuesday I saw Herbert or Thursday etc etc At the end of the day the barn's still there but what time Herbert staggered past is open to debate!!!!!!
suzi
} |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2761
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Kane,
"If a nervous Hutchinson came forward as a result of reading Sarah Lewis' statement in the newspapers,placing him in the right location and close to the time of the murder,why would he put his neck on the line by saying he was watching the court for three quaters of an hour?"
Because someone else had already stated that she saw a man standing outside the court, and he had no idea how much the police knew or if that man was identified. He might have thought that he better come forward himself with a bogus story, before he was identified. It would be more risky for him not to come forward (we must remember that he couldnt know himself how much the police really knew about the loitering man).
It doesen't necessarily mean that he was guilty of anything, only that he had good reasons for coming forward. He could just have been afraid of being taken for the Ripper, regardless if he were the killer or not. He needed to put himself in a better light.
It is really quite simple.
Why he really stood there, though, we can only speculate.
The part where he stood outside the court is in my view the only thing in his statement that rings true -- the rest seems fabricated, to say the least. And if it's not, I'll eat my own waxed moustasch for dinner .
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 192
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
One killer that physically assisted police in an attempt in discovering "the culprit" by actually helping them scour a field for clues was Nathan Leopold of the infamous Loeb and Leopold duo and murder of Bobby Franks in Chicago back in the 1920's...
Of course,Leopold left his glasses near the spot these two creeps left the poor boy's body and was nailed by the police.
Sorry to sidetrack the G.H. discussion !
Back to G.H...........
(Message edited by howard on January 09, 2005) |
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Another point to ponder is whether or not Hutchinson came forward because he felt he could be identified as the man seen loitering that night.
Of this, we have no way of knowing, but if we hark back to the Stride killing, Mr Pipeman never came forward, yet he was seen, (and his description later given out), in the vicinty of the murder less than 20 minutes before Stride was found dead. Why didn't he come forward?
IMO the only reason for Hutchinson to come forward is because he strongly suspected that the woman he had seen enter the court, at 2.30am that night, could identify him.
As to Hutchinson being JTR or even just the murderer of MJK, I find the notion too far-fetched.
Cheers,
Michael. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2767
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Michael,
"Another point to ponder is whether or not Hutchinson came forward because he felt he could be identified as the man seen loitering that night."
Which is exactly the point I've been stressing now for several months and what I referred to above.
"...but if we hark back to the Stride killing, Mr Pipeman never came forward, yet he was seen, (and his description later given out), in the vicinty of the murder less than 20 minutes before Stride was found dead. Why didn't he come forward?"
Well, we don't know if Pipeman was identified. Not that we should believe anything the papers say, but a couple of them actually claimed that two witnesses from the Stride assault on Berner Street were brought in by the police and identified. If this is true (which is not supported by the police documentation), then the other one -- besides Schwartz -- must have been Pipeman. My bet is that the papers have done some sort of mix-up with some witness from Mitre Square, but we can't know this for sure.
But more importantly: there is a difference. Pipe-man did not hang around a murder scene for 45 minutes! Hutchinson knew perfectly well, that if someone had seen him, they had gotten a good look at him (from his perspective, based on the very little information he had), regardless of who, how or when someone really did spot him. So it's a fallacy to compare Pipeman to Hutchinson, because the situation is quite different.
Still, once again, the strongest sign of that his statement regarding the suspect is a cooked-up story, is his extraordinary detailed description of the man, which is not only too detailed, but is more or less a clean copy of the caricatures of rich Jews figuring in the illustrated papers.
It is not a question of the police being stupid, merely that they were desperate for results and at this point jumped at every suspect that were delivered to them, especially if it was delivered by a man who came forward on his own initiative. All it took for Hutchinson was to be pretty convincing.
Regardless if he had something to do with the murder or not, he needed to save his skin before he was identified as the loitering man and in the worst case risked to be suspected for being Jack the Ripper and maybe even lynched by the East End mob. But why he stood outside Millers' Court for 45 minutes, we will never know, and his own explanation is not satisfying, to say the least.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3843
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 4:45 am: |
|
Glenn, I too am doubtful whether two witnesses of the Stride attack were found. Could the papers have been getting mixed up with Best and Gardiner?
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 469
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 4:59 am: |
|
There are actually quite a few serial killers who have volunteered information to police to try to "help" the investigation. Disbelieving in Hutchinson as a suspect based upon the idea that a a killer wouldn't do such a thing is completely misplaced. It's not only circular reasoning at its worst, but the premise is exactly opposite of what we know from studying other killers. It's kind of like arguing that someone couldn't have beaten his wife because he liked to drink and drunks are peaceful and sedate.
Believing that Hutchinson must be innocent because the police discounted him seems to be based upon the idea that they were incapable of making mistakes. This also doesn't match with what we know of this case or more recent serial killer investigations.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Hi All,
Glenn:
You say there is a difference between Pipeman and Hutchinson and it's a fallacy to compare Pipeman to Hutchinson, because the situation is quite different.
Granted, but regardless of the differing situation or whether Pipemen stood around a murder scene for 45 minutes or not, the point I am making is that he was SEEN, just like Hutchinson was SEEN, but he never came forward, whereas Hutchinson did. Where is the difference!
Also, as I stated, a description of Pipeman was circulated, yet no description was circulated about the man Lewis saw. So again, the only conclusion we can draw for the reason of why Hutchinson came forward is because, in his own mind, he felt he may be identified at some point.
I am not trying to make a case against Hutchinson here, and do agree, to a certain extent, with you and some of the other options of why he did come forward.
The only thing I cannot figure out is; why the elaborate statement.
Maybe he was just another Matthew Packer.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Hi All,
I go with the possibility that Hutchinson went forward because he thought he may have been identified by Sarah Cox or even others that had passed by.
What puzzles me about Hutchinson is why the police at the time -Abberline and the rest of the team-were not just as suspicious about his loitering around outside the murder room more or less around the time it was believed to have happened.
If its obvious to all of us I would have thought it was obvious to them too-or to Abberline and those working closely on the case at least.
Which brings me to the second point which is that this was considered to be the fifth murder by the same hand.Therefore surely the police would not have been satisfied with just any old replies from Hutchinson but would have questioned him about his whereabouts on the nights/early mornings of each of the murders which had all taken place within the previous 3 months.
Surely their first port of call would have been the manager/deputy manager of his lodging house to verify his statements or answers.To me it looks as though for at least one of the "events" he must have had good alibis which may have thrown them off the scent if for example it was Hutchinson who killed Mart Kelly but did not kill the others.They like most of us were trying to find out who Jack the Ripper was and may perhaps have not considered that there could be 2[or more]rippers.But we know they did house to house questioning and searched houses for blood stains
so I would be surprised if they took everything that Hutchinson said at face value.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2771
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Like I've pointed out earlier, the conduct of the police doesne't puzzle me one bit. It is quite easy to scratch our own heads concerning that -- from where we sit today.
Just before Kelly's murder the police had already been strained to the max and had investigated hundreds of leads that went nowhere, while the pressure on them had continued to increase, from political corners, from the press and not to mention the general public.
The, as there seemed to be a period of refief and non-activity from the killer, the Kelly murder occurred. If they were frustrated before they were now probably completely desperate.
My bet is, that Hutchinson's alibi for the (other) Ripper murders was checked by the police (which I would assume was the case also with Barnett) -- or else the police really screwed things up! This is also one of the points that might argue against him being the Ripper. If the police didn't check Hutchinson and Barnett on these counts, they would have been subject to serious investigation errors.
Now, if Hutchinson's alibi cleared him from the other murders, they might have had easier to believe his story, since they were on the lookout for the same killer who had butchered the other women -- Jack the Ripper.
And so, the man who they probably had been on the look-out for, that hang around outside Miller's Court, now suddenly turns himself in; his alibi for the Ripper murders checks out OK, and on top of it all he delivers a suspect to the police who is now desperate for clues. And he delivers an incredibly detailed description.
Well, naturally this clouds their judgement and they jumps at the chance. It is quite possible that the police might have been more suspicious if the circumstances and the political climate was different.
That is what I believe happened.
We must try to picture ourselves in the role and situation of the contemporary police at the time of the murders, and who were in a real jam at this moment.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2772
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
"Granted, but regardless of the differing situation or whether Pipemen stood around a murder scene for 45 minutes or not, the point I am making is that he was SEEN, just like Hutchinson was SEEN, but he never came forward, whereas Hutchinson did. Where is the difference!"
I just told you.
The difference lies in the fact that Hutchinson's conduct -- loitering outside a crime scene a whole 45 minutes, before the murder -- is much more suspicious (while Pipeman's conduct were really not that easy to interpret, and could be -- and it indeed was -- interpreted in different ways.
Not to mention the fact that a man that has been standing on the same spot for 45 minutes would be easier to identify than someone who had been seen during an incident lasting two minutes by a scared witness.
So Hutchinson probably assumed that he had been identified or was close to being identified in any minute, and therefore needed to come up with a good explanation in order to explain his whereabouts there. They key to this was the fabricated suspect, whom he probably invented in order to explain his loitering in the first place. And so he probably assumed, that if he delivered a detailed description, the police would be interested and if the description also differed to the largest extent from himself, so much the better. So it was all a scam in order to keep the police's attention from himself, and he probably thought that the more elaborated description he delivered, the more interested the police would be in his information. And it worked. It was all decisions based on pure self-preservation on Hutchinson's part, in my opinion.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Are you suggesting that Hutchinson invented the whole story to give credence why he was standing opposite Millers court.
Accepting that observation, can you then infrom me why Hutchinson was standing there?.
Did he not see kelly that morning , was he a lookout for her killer, was he her pimp, was he a love sick stalker,was he a murderer.
Mrs lewis at the inquest did not say, 'I saw the man Hutchinson across the road that morning at 230am, the man she described could have been thousands of local dwellers.
The only reason he would have invented the whole story was if he was her killer, and I cannot believe that a young guy in his early twenties, that lived to a pensionable age , that played the violin and loved ice skating committed one of the most horrific murders in British History.
Yes I am suggesting that Reg,s father was the said George.
You May well say 'Yes Richard but you are suggesting that J Barnett killed Kelly and lived to a old age, but the question is simply motive , Barnett had one , And Hutchinson did not.
Regards Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2779
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Richard,
"Glenn,
Are you suggesting that Hutchinson invented the whole story to give credence why he was standing opposite Millers court."
Yep. Of course.
"Accepting that observation, can you then infrom me why Hutchinson was standing there?.
Did he not see kelly that morning , was he a lookout for her killer, was he her pimp, was he a love sick stalker,was he a murderer."
We can't possibly know that. That is open to speculation, and I have mentioned some alternatives previously. He could have been her pimp (which I find questionable), he could have seen her and a customer and decided to mug the guy as he out, he could simply have been one of her clients and was waiting for his turn and waited for her customer to leave the court (which is my personal choice at this point) etc.
"Mrs lewis at the inquest did not say, 'I saw the man Hutchinson across the road that morning at 230am, the man she described could have been thousands of local dwellers."
Yes, but this is a point that continues to be over-looked. I have explained this over and over again. That is based on what we know.
HUTCHINSON COULDN'T KNOW THAT!!!!!
He couldn't how much the police knew or if the man seen outside the court (himself) really had been identified! And he couldn't take the chance. You must think yourself into his position, Richard, and not base your analysing on what we know in retrospect and bird's view. For us it's evident that he could have been one of hundred guys in the area, because we know the loitering man in question wasn't identified until Hutchinson himself came forward!
And I am NOT stressing that Hutchinson was Mary Kelly's killer (I only have that as an alternative among others), I personally believe she was killed by someone she knew and was close to her. We have no evidence of that Hutchinson belonged to that clique of people. But that is just my view.
My bet is that Hutchinson's crime really was that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and found himself in trouble for it.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 10, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 441
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
“Are you suggesting that Hutchinson invented the whole story to give credence why he was standing opposite Millers court.
Accepting that observation, can you then inform me why Hutchinson was standing there?”
No offence Richard, but I’m glad to see you’ve finally understood ‘our’ view on GH’s account. What you’re saying here is what people like Glenn and me have been saying al along, and in a nutshell, too.
Yes, he invented at least part of his story to explain his presence in Dorset Street. Why he did that, I don’t know – he apparently didn’t want the police to know that or otherwise he would have told the truth. By the way, it doesn’t mean that he was MJK’s killer or JtR.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Placing myself in Hutchinsons position, I Would have come forward as soon as i heard that Mary had been killed during the early morning [ or later morning ] of the 9th.
However the fear of a police vendetta on myself and the fright that the killer which i believed i saw might come after me, might give me second thoughts, I would have discussed my sightings with people i knew and tried to gauge the best decision.
The evidence we have points to that he decided only on the Monday to approach the frustrated police force.
if i am correct in assumming that he simply relayed his sightings and gave a description of the man he saw Kelly with as accurately as his memory served him, and his conscious was clear, he was simply doing his duty as a local resident who made it clear that he was aquainted with the deseased.
Any other suggestions for his motives are extremely sinister.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2782
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
No way, Richard.
I don't buy this at all. Sorry, but that is my view.
"Placing myself in Hutchinsons position, I Would have come forward as soon as i heard that Mary had been killed during the early morning [ or later morning ] of the 9th."
No, Richard, because there would be no reason for it. He didn't know until then that he had been seen.
BUT HERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT:
IF his intention would be because he wanted to check up on the character he described and wanted to look after kelly, THEN he would have come forward directly (unless he were scared for the same reasons), but the fact that HE WAITED until after Lews' testimony was public, makes it suspicious!!!!!
His description of the man is way too detailed and is fitting too well the generalisations of the Rich Jews seen portrayed in the papers.
I could be wrong of course, but I have read enough witness testimonies in my day, in order to discover a really supicious one when I see it. It is complete bogus. This is my personal view.
And what is sinister about him standing outside the court waiting "for his turn" in Kelly's place? It would hardly sort him out from that many guys in East End in those days.
No offense, Rich, please, but I think you are being a bit naive here.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 442
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
“Granted, but regardless of the differing situation or whether Pipemen stood around a murder scene for 45 minutes or not, the point I am making is that he was SEEN, just like Hutchinson was SEEN, but he never came forward, whereas Hutchinson did. Where is the difference!”
In addition to Glenn, although the police considered Schwartz an important witness, he didn’t testify at Stride’s inquest, and so, his official statement didn’t appear in the papers. As far as I know the Star was the only newspaper to carry an article about Schwartz’ statement. However, it didn’t mention a man with a pipe, but a man with a knife. Furthermore, according the Star article, this Knifeman was the one who did the shouting and the Star article even had him rush forward as if to attack Schwartz. The description the Star gave of Pipeman wasn’t as detailed as the one in the official statement and it didn’t completely agree with it either.
As the Star article was the only article Pipeman could have read about the incident (as far as I know) and as Pipeman’s behaviour and description most probably didn’t agree with reality, he might not have recognised himself in either of them and subsequently didn’t feel the need to come forward. Or maybe he recognised himself in it, but didn’t want to get involved and did just that as he wasn’t anything like the Star described him and so, he wouldn’t have to worry about being found.
By the way, I’m not sure if Schwartz’ official description of Pipeman was circulated. His official description of Mr. Broad Shoulders was, in the Police Gazette of 19 October.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Glenn, in reply to Richard, you wrote:
No way, Richard.
I don't buy this at all. Sorry, but that is my view.
"Placing myself in Hutchinsons position, I Would have come forward as soon as i heard that Mary had been killed during the early morning [ or later morning ] of the 9th."
No, Richard, because there would be no reason for it. He didn't know until then that he had been seen.
My question is, how do you know that it was only after the newspaper report was published that Hutchinson knew he had been seen?
Surely it is more logical to believe that, if Hutchinson saw Lewis, then surely Lewis saw him, and Hutchinson knew this that very same night.
Next you wrote:
BUT HERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT:
IF his intention would be because he wanted to check up on the character he described and wanted to look after kelly, THEN he would have come forward directly (unless he were scared for the same reasons), but the fact that HE WAITED until after Lews' testimony was public, makes it suspicious!!!!!
A bit of a conumdrum here Glenn.
How about - "The fact that HE WAITED until after Lewis' testimony was public, makes it suspicious,(unless he was scared for the same reasons,THEN he would have come forward directly)."
It seems by re-arranging your reply we get an alternative answer, which is just as viable. In fact, you said it yourself.
In reply to my post, you wrote:
I just told you.
The difference lies in the fact that Hutchinson's conduct -- loitering outside a crime scene a whole 45 minutes, before the murder -- is much more suspicious (while Pipeman's conduct were really not that easy to interpret, and could be -- and it indeed was -- interpreted in different ways.
Again, you miss the point. Both were SEEN, only one came forward to make a statement.
Frank, you wrote,
In addition to Glenn, although the police considered Schwartz an important witness, he didn’t testify at Stride’s inquest, and so, his official statement didn’t appear in the papers. As far as I know the Star was the only newspaper to carry an article about Schwartz’ statement. However, it didn’t mention a man with a pipe, but a man with a knife. Furthermore, according the Star article, this Knifeman was the one who did the shouting and the Star article even had him rush forward as if to attack Schwartz. The description the Star gave of Pipeman wasn’t as detailed as the one in the official statement and it didn’t completely agree with it either.
Surely it would be obvious to Mr Pipe/Knife Man that it was himself the newspaper was reporting about, regardless of what misinformation they had and how they reported it. He was there. He saw Schwartz. He probably saw the attack on Stride. He ran when Schwartz ran. Just these snippets of information alone should be enough for Pipe/Knife Man to be able to know that it is HIM they are talking about.
Also, and to use Glenn's logic; how can Mr Pipeman know exactly how much the police did or did not know about him.
He was seen, he knows this, yet he does not come forward.
This self-same principle also applies to Hutchinson, yet he did come forward.
In both cases a degree of suspicion arises.
Why didn't he come forward?
Why did he wait to come forward?
Another viable option, (and a strong one that no-body has though about before), of why Hutchinson came forward could be: Having read that Mary Kelly was murdered at 4.00am, Hutchinson may have have come to believe that the man he had seen go to kelly's room was not the killer, and that he might also come forward as well, and be able to name him because Mary Kelly had told him Hutchinson's name.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2785
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Michael,
"My question is, how do you know that it was only after the newspaper report was published that Hutchinson knew he had been seen?
Surely it is more logical to believe that, if Hutchinson saw Lewis, then surely Lewis saw him, and Hutchinson knew this that very same night!"
Well, there must be some reason for him waiting to come forward after Mrs Lewis testimony. I hardly think it's a coincidence. He probably didn't think much about it, and maybe had forgotten bout it, until he heard about the testimony and realised... damn!
"A bit of a conumdrum here Glenn.
How about - "The fact that HE WAITED until after Lewis' testimony was public, makes it suspicious,(unless he was scared for the same reasons,THEN he would have come forward directly)."
It seems by re-arranging your reply we get an alternative answer, which is just as viable. In fact, you said it yourself."
Lost you there, mate. Sorry, call me slow, I've been scratching my head for fifteen minuted but I just don't see it.
My point was, that if the incident was so important for him, and the character he followed in company with Mary kelly looked so suspicious... then why didn't he contact the police immediately or when the murder was known? Why did he wait until after the inquest? Surely this points to the fact that he was more concerned about his own skin than genuinely of Mary Kelly. And that the fact that he came forward was directly connected to that he had been seen by Mrs. Lewis (and , he might have thought, by someone else as well).
"Again, you miss the point. Both were SEEN, only one came forward to make a statement."
No Michael,
You didn't get it. Both were seen, yes, but it doesen't matter since there were circumstances around Hutchinson's appearance that were different from the one in Berner Street (like the long time he stood there, if he had stood there for 45 minutes, how many more people had really seen him under that time?) and I just tried to tell you why.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:37 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I see a point of clarification is needed here.
I appreciate your posts and the comments you make, but the ONLY issue I was addressing was the fact that both were SEEN. Nothing more, nothing less. As to the circumstances applicable in both instances, GH and Pipeman, these are moot points because again, I was only dealing with the fact that both were SEEN, yet only one came forward. I cannot see where there is a problem with this, or the need to debate the various differing circumstances.
Pipeman was seen - Did not come forward
Hutchinson was seen - Did come forward.
That's it
Cheers,
Michael |
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:51 am: |
|
Hi Again Glenn.
Perhaps this may also help.
My point of view on Hutchinson is that I see nothing supicious in him coming forward when he did, only why he made such a elaborate statement.
The only thing I am trying to understand is his motivation for coming forward, and one of many good reasons, is because: "Having read that Mary Kelly was murdered at 4.00am, Hutchinson may have have come to believe that the man he had seen go to kelly's room was not the killer, and that he might also come forward as well, and be able to name him because Mary Kelly had told him Hutchinson's name.
Cheers,
Michael |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2786
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
"The only thing I am trying to understand is his motivation for coming forward, and one of many good reasons, is because: "Having read that Mary Kelly was murdered at 4.00am, Hutchinson may have have come to believe that the man he had seen go to kelly's room was not the killer, and that he might also come forward as well, and be able to name him because Mary Kelly had told him Hutchinson's name."
Yes, I noticed that, but to tell you the truth I don't know what to think of it. What man are we talking about here? The man that Hutchinson described in his statement?
Because if that's the case, I 'll have to scrap that one, because I don't think that man existed.
If you are referring to another presumed client Hutch might have seen her with, that is of course a possibility. But then we are assuming that Kelly really did know Hutchinson, which we have no evidence of whatsoever.
And why on earth would she talk about Hutchinson to her clients? I can't see the point in that, and I assume they had other things to do than talk about people that Mary kelly knew.
And not even Joseph Barnett, who lived with Kelly for 18 months, mentions Hutchinson (while he on the other hand mentions Joe Flemming).
Fact remains that Hutchinson came forward after the inquest was held and Mrs Lewis' testimony became public knowledge. And I don't think this was a coincidence.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 11, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
We obviously disagree over Hutchinsons integriety, although not accusing him directly of foul play , you tend to point towards some form of skullduggery.
The only point needs addressing is 'what took him so long to approach the police?.
Hutchinson answers that one himself by stating that he came forward because his fellow boarders suggested he should do so, he claimed to have approached a policeman on the sunday , but was dismissed by him.
If he was the killer of kelly, and was paronoid about being seen, why would he loiter outside a building that was full of people for a full 45 minutes?.
You are right the description that Hutchinson relayed to the police seems overdone, it is suspicious to us now, and must have seemed odd to the whitechapel police at the time, the fact that they appeared to take a serious intrest in his statement leads me to believe that they had aquired a similar description from other sources over the weekend.
I just dont buy the 'after the inquest theory' but i find Michaels unique offering of an explanation refreshing.
We know that Hutchinson [ to say the least] was being extremly nosey, we know that he attempted to look the man straight in the face, he according to GH, 'looked at me stern' is it not possible that the stranger said to Kelly' whos that guy' and the reply was 'Only Hutchinson'.
Therefore two points arise from this.
1] If Hutchinson believed he saw 'Jack' he wanted to make himself known to the police, for the fear factor , he would want this man apprehended as soon as possible.
2]If he believed that the man was not kellys killer, and it was possible Kelly had told him his name, then after the murder 'Mr Astracan might report to the police of the Hutchinson incident, and it would look mighty strange if he hid from the police and did not report the incident.
Both of the above are plausible reasons, along with the simply doing his public duty aspect, then having something sinister to hide.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2789
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Well, there is one big problem with your suggestions (and Michael's), namely that you're still taking for granted that Hutch told the truth about the Astracan man!
Because I can bet you one pint of Guinness that he did not! And on the other hand you acknowledge yourself that it feels "overdone".
"We know that Hutchinson [ to say the least] was being extremly nosey, we know that he attempted to look the man straight in the face, he according to GH, 'looked at me stern' is it not possible that the stranger said to Kelly' whos that guy' and the reply was 'Only Hutchinson'."
No, Richard, we don't "know" these things -- be careful with that word -- unless you want to take Hutchinson's own words for it. And we shouldn't. Source evaluation again, Richard. We can't "know" something based upon what is only known from one source, and especially from a source that must be considered dubious.
"Therefore two points arise from this.
1] If Hutchinson believed he saw 'Jack' he wanted to make himself known to the police, for the fear factor , he would want this man apprehended as soon as possible.
2]If he believed that the man was not kellys killer, and it was possible Kelly had told him his name, then after the murder 'Mr Astracan might report to the police of the Hutchinson incident, and it would look mighty strange if he hid from the police and did not report the incident.
Both of the above are plausible reasons, along with the simply doing his public duty aspect, then having something sinister to hide.
Richard."
Again, all based upon that Hutchinson in many ways told the truth and that he actually saw a man at all (which we can't know) or that the Astracan man in fact existed (which I totally discount). I believe everything in Hutchinson's statement except the part where he hangs around the crime scene for 45 minutes is a complete fabrication and a whopping fib (including his reasons for loitering there).
If he felt threatened by a customer he had seen with Mary Kelly and had realised that this might be her murderer, why didn't he go to the police directly? Why didn't he come forward until after the inquest? Because regardless how much you want to believe in that or not, that is actually what he did. If he had tried to approach a policeman earlier about this, this could have been easily corroborated by an enquiry among the constables.
Why he was there, we may never know, though, and we can only leave that up to guessing.
As I said, fact remains that Hutchinson came forward after the inquest was held and Mrs Lewis' testimony became public knowledge. And I don't think this was a coincidence.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
What do you feel was Hutchinsons motivation for coming forward, if, as you believe, 95% of his statement is false?
The fact that he was seen by one woman, to me, does not warrant his giving himself up for a statement.
It was only one witness. To argue that there was possibly another witness is irresponsible as there is no proof.
That he did not know how much information the police had about this loitering man witnessed by Lewis, (ie himself), is again a pointless argument because we do not know whether Hutchinson believed Sarah Lewis knew him by sight. If she did I would have expected her to divulge this information to the police.
One point that you may like to make about this last statement is that: Perhaps she did tell the police she had seen Hutchinson, but they withheld this information from the press and public.
If this was the case, then surely when Hutchinson did turn up on the 12th, the interview would have taken a different course and the police may not have been as quick to accept his description of what happened that night. For a start, I believe we would have seen more evidence of an enquiry into Hutchinson and his background in the Official Police Files.
So again, I say to you, what do you believe was his motivation?
The only explanation I can think of, that seems to have some merit, is that; Having read that Mary Kelly was murdered at 4.00am, Hutchinson may have come to believe that the man he had seen go to kelly's room was not the killer, and that this man might also come forward as well, and be able to name him because Mary Kelly had told him Hutchinson's name."
Thank you Richard for explaining and clarifying to Glenn what I was driving at with this statement.
To close this email I will leave with you one other thought.
Glenn, perhaps the reason Hutchinson's statement feels a bit over the top, especially in regards the description of the man he saw is because he had a hatred of the Jews and this was his way of getting his own back at them.
Did you ever consider this?
Cheers,
Michael
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2791
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
"What do you feel was Hutchinsons motivation for coming forward, if, as you believe, 95% of his statement is false?"
I am afraid I have already several times now stated what I believe his motivation was. That is partly what this discussion has been all about. I really shouldn't need to repeat it again.
"That he did not know how much information the police had about this loitering man witnessed by Lewis, (ie himself), is again a pointless argument because we do not know whether Hutchinson believed Sarah Lewis knew him by sight. If she did I would have expected her to divulge this information to the police."
Yes, but once again, how could Hutchinson know that? Why am I talking to death ears here?
No, it is not a pointless argument, because I believe such a reaction would have been quite plausible if we look at his situation. Of course he took a risk by coming forward as well, but we all react differently and I believe he decided to take the bull by the horn and that it would be more risky for him to just sit and wait for the police to knock at his door (which I don't believe they would have anyway, but as I said that is based on what we know from here we sit). I find this very likely.
"One point that you may like to make about this last statement is that: Perhaps she did tell the police she had seen Hutchinson, but they withheld this information from the press and public."
Which is exactly along the lines I have thoughts.
This was quite often the case.
"If this was the case, then surely when Hutchinson did turn up on the 12th, the interview would have taken a different course and the police may not have been as quick to accept his description of what happened that night. For a start, I believe we would have seen more evidence of an enquiry into Hutchinson and his background in the Official Police Files."
No, because I believe he managed to convince the police. We must consider the situation of the police at this point in the Ripper events. I have also thoroughly given my views on this in a post above. No need for me to repeat it once more, but I can add it from that post:
"Just before Kelly's murder the police had already been strained to the max and had investigated hundreds of leads that went nowhere, while the pressure on them had continued to increase, from political corners, from the press and not to mention the general public.
Then, as there seemed to be a period of relief and non-activity from the killer, the Kelly murder occurred. If they were frustrated before they were now probably completely desperate.
[...]
And so, the man who they probably had been on the look-out for, that hang around outside Miller's Court, now suddenly turns himself in; his alibi for the Ripper murders checks out OK, and on top of it all he delivers a suspect to the police who is now desperate for clues. And he delivers an incredibly detailed description.
Well, naturally this clouds their judgement and they jumps at the chance. It is quite possible that the police might have been more suspicious if the circumstances and the political climate was different."
"Glenn, perhaps the reason Hutchinson's statement feels a bit over the top, especially in regards the description of the man he saw is because he had a hatred of the Jews and this was his way of getting his own back at them.
Did you ever consider this?"
Well, that would of course only be meaningless speculation because we cant in any know what he felt about the Jews (although I can't rule that out). A more plausible idea would be that he was coloured by the climate in the papers and the antisemitic feelings in the area (not necessarily meaning he was antisemitic himself); the Jews had already since the beginning of the murders been blamed in the papers.But the point is, if he really had seen and followed a man in company with Mary Kelly, there would be no need for him to construct a fabricated description. That would be just plain stupid on his part.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your last post.
Just one last post from me on this topic of Hutchinson, as it seems I am frustrating you with my views.
To follow your example: All this is meaningless speculation because we cannot in any way know how or what Hutchinson felt about the situation.
I agree. You have your theories/ideas. I have mine.
Plainly Put, mine are: I concur with the majority of the people who believe Hutchinson's statement to be true, though I regard it to be a personally biased and highly exaggerated account.
Finally. You wrote: ..if he really had seen and followed a man in company with Mary Kelly, there would be no need for him to construct a fabricated description. That would be just plain stupid on his part.
But isn't this basically what you believe Hutchinson to have done.
To quote you - I believe everything in Hutchinson's statement except the part where he hangs around the crime scene for 45 minutes is a complete fabrication and a whopping fib (including his reasons for loitering there).
The defense rests.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2796
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
I may be frustrated but it's just that I don't enjoy repeating myself three or four times on the same issue. It's really not your fault -- it is just I, who have been on these Boards too long. Every argument has already been hammered twenty times. It's not your fault I can't learn to stay out if it.
..'if he really had seen and followed a man in company with Mary Kelly, there would be no need for him to construct a fabricated description. That would be just plain stupid on his part.'
But isn't this basically what you believe Hutchinson to have done."
No, because I don't think he followed a man in company with Mary kelly that night, at least not someone who was suspicious to him. I think this part was a complete fabrication.
The prosecution rests. We're adjourned.
G, Sweden
All the best
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 16
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Lets say the the jury is out on this one.
Cheers,
Michael (Being your Light-hearted friend) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2798
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
The jury has left the building. Case closed. 
Cheers! The next Guinness is on me.
I think we both could use another.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 11, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Touche, mon captain".
Or should I say Assistant Commissioner.
Cheers,
Michael
By the way, I prefer Theakstons Old Peculiar to Guiness. |
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Touche, mon captain".
Or should I say, mon Assistant Commissioner.
Cheers,
Michael
By the way, I prefer Theakstons Old Peculiar to Guinness. |
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Sorry about the double post. I thought I had cancelled the first one (18).
Spelling mistake.
As an Englishman I should be flogged for mis-spelling Guinness.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 193
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
No, Michael,
It is I who should be flogged.. an English woman who mis-spelled Guinness many posts ago...
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
The ripper was seen by Elizabeth Long before he murdered Annie Chapman and it was dawn or almost dawn already.The ripper was also seen by Joseph Lawende minutes before he murdered Catherine Eddowes.He didn't care to be seen from a certain distance.So i think if Sarah Lewis saw him he wouldn't have cared.
( Sarah Lewis and George didn't know each other or she would have told the police that he's the guy she saw,so there's no reason for the "ripper"(George) to come forward afraid Sarah might name him.Unless he thought she might because he knew Kelly and Sarah most likely knew Kelly.)But George told police he waited outside for 45 minutes,leaving at 3:00 a.m. knowing that that would ring a bell..He could have said he left at 2:40 after Sarah saw him.That would be less suspicious.
A possibility is George was able to give a detailed description of the man because he saw gold . He probably was already counting how much he would have made(five shillings for that,four for that..) after he robs the guy after he emerges from the building. 2-3 o'clock a.m..was a good time.How often oppurtunity comes at this time?Besides he told Mary Kelly he didn't have the sixpence.Probably broke. Robbery was common in that area.
Probably the reason of the delayed information he gave police is because he had criminal intent when he stood outside of 13 Miller's Court for 45 minutes.
On a different matter nobody heard Mary Ann Kelly or her first customer leave,the one Cox saw.It's probable she could have gotten another one after the guy George saw and nobody would have heard or known.Or wait for the guy george saw to leave and
minutes later came in. |
Johntquere
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Another possibility is if Goergecleans up his mess i.e.no physical evidence can be traced to him
and knowing he will be investigated anyway if he comes forward(if he was concerned about Sarah Lewis seeing a man forcing him to go to the police) it would be better for him to say he was there and even state he waited 45 minutes outside.That way it would more likely make the police think that he's not JTR because JTR woudn't incriminate himself.A reverse phsycology of some sort.Remember he doesn't cancel a murder even if people sees him before he does it,like in the Chapman and Eddowes case.He still see it through. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Richard
Jack Hughes He's our man!!
Can't help but take a step back from all this ...and when after 'that weekend' our George walked into the police staion there was a general 'tiredness' about the place ,and that although Abberline found him an interesting enough cove,along with his 'statement' probably thought he was safe enough to release back onto the streets.
As to the reasons he followed our Mary.. they are legion.....that is the stuff of these boards,....BUT we only of course have HIS word for it that he did! (apart from s
Sarah saying she saw someone 'lurking'....think....it could have been anyone) and now GH's statement and 'confession' becomes even murkier!
Suzi
|
johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
The one thing that bothers me about George's testimony is he didn't mention seeing Sarah Lewis.
She was the only person who went inside Miller's Court while George was (supposedly) there.That would have sticked out.
The police would have surely checked all his alibis (this murder and other murders and perhaps George told police he was gonna rob or mug the guy after he comes out and kept it among themselves,keep the press out)and was satified otherwise George would have never ceased to be a suspect in Mary Kelly's murder.I trust Abberline and the Police for some reason. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Johnghtrer,
I doubt if our George would have told the police the reason i was standing there was'I was going to rob the guy, or mug him' that would have been stupid to say the least.
However you raise a good point about him not mentioning that he saw Lewis as he was keenly observing the court, that is very strange..
Of course he may have left by then , and the man Lewis saw was another watcher, the latter is my idea, of possible events that person could have been her killer.
Richard. |
johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
Richard,
Good Point.But in reality people make deals like
in some court cases reduced sentence for admission of guilt,reduced sentence in exchange for testimony in another case,etc..The intensity
of the case and the police questioning and George
most likely wanting anything but to be suspected of murder would make it ordinary.In anycase he didn't do it,only intention.
About George and Sarah Lewis their timeline match.
Either that or one them gave a false timeline.I tend to believe Sarah Lewis.
|
johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:33 am: |
|
After some thought, because he said he told a police man and nothing happened,the cop did'nt even take him into the police staion (despite the hysteria)and not mentioning Sarah Lewis, George was lying about that early morning hour.He probablly told a previous event
or events.That some of it were true gave him some confidence.He was in for the money and glory, a time-waster.
The only circumstancial evidence against him are he knew Kelly and probably knew the broken window and door situation.And as pointed out by some author the direction from Mitre Square to Goulston St. where Eddowes apron was found (a block away) is Victoria homes,where George is said to frequently lodge .
So who was the guy Sarah Lewis saw? |
johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
George Hutchinson I think lied about the 2:00-3:00 time frame.I think he saw or sees Mary Kelly with her "customers"' and maybe even including the
well-dressed guy he described,in the hours even days or more before that 2:00-3:00 time frame.He spoke the truth so that gave some confidence.But he used that time frame and a description of one of her clients for his own benefit.
He said he told a policeman but the cop did'nt took him to the station or took his name.Given the hysteria of the case and the importance of his story that's a lie.
If he was a no-ulterior motive, honest, tell what i saw,tell what happened witness he would mention seeing Sarah Lewis.He was there between 2:15 and 3:00.Sarah Lewis came to miller's court 2:35-2:40.
In anycase the police still would have gave him some importance since any man who was a client of Mary Kelly has to be questioned by the police.
As far as George being the Ripper and afraid of Sarah Lewis knowing him,if Sarah Lewis knew George the police would have been on him after the inquest.And also the ripper does'nt care to be seen at a certain distance as demonstrated by the Lawende,Harris, Levy trio and Elizabeth Long sunrise incidents. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
