| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:20 pm: | 
|
G'day Wolf,
They could have worked shifts! My point is JOSEPH BARNETT WAS NOT A PIMP!
In Bruce Paley's book there's there's a quote from a newspaper of Julia Venturney's: 'He said that he would not live with her while she lead that course of life.' She was a close friend of Mary's so that would have been told to her by Mary herself, not by Barnett as if he was pretending to be 'clean'.
Julia was also the one to reveal Mary's other secret of preferring Joseph Flemming, who chose to ignore prostitution. That was something that would have been revealed by Mary Kelly herself.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 12, 2005) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Robert
just try jumping into a taxi in central London and saying 'take me to Collindales'.
£50 later he will dump you somewhere still in central and tell you to get a bus.
Them London taxi drivers get lost as soon as they outta the city, but only because there is no cash to be made outside of the city.
No queues for the chamber pot outside of the city.
You pay to P*** with those guys.
Leanne
h e c o u l d h a v e b e e n . |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Richard
I do not firmly believe that Hutchinson would have known Barnett by sight.
Hutchinson had known her for some time, however Joe had not really been with her all that long.
I do not doubt that Hutchinson had been a client on more than one occasion, however this does not mean that Kelly discussed her private life with her clients.
I am very doubtful of Hutchinson's story. His description was far more detailed than one would be likely to actually see, under the conditions.
It is true that he volunteered that fact that he was there, after the fact again, but maybe he knew that he was spotted.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Leanne
I agree with you that Barnett was not Mary's pimp for the reasons you stated.
George Hutchinson is a possiblity when it comes to Mary, however, how about John Pizer?
It was known that he often beat up the prostitutes and stole their money, and it seems that the prostitutes feared him.
This seems more like the actions of a pimp to me, what do you think?
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Hi Richard
The statement you make with respect to the clothing of the person George Hutchinson described, should only apply if one actually believes Geo.
In my opinion his description is far too detailed and precise for the conditions of the early morning, and or lighting conditions.
I feel that George was pulling a Mathew Packert.
Matthew's story changed for the papers and is regarded by many to be exaggerated, if not just made up. I also feel that George's description was far from the truth.
regards
Julie
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi Julie,
With Regard to the lighting conditions we should understand what would be unexceptable lighting in modern times was very much the norm then and victorian eyes became accostomed to the dim, very much like the blackout during the last war.
Regarding George Hutchinson.
We have no assurance exactly who the real Gh was only the word of his late [alleged] son Reg, who gave a character reading of his father.
He had a eye for detail.
He loved music hall.
He played the violin well.
He and his wife were keen iceskaters.
He was a hard working and honest guy and when asked about the east end murders in the twenties would simply say 'He knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police, and that the man he saw was dressed upper class.
These attributes does not suggest a user of prostitutes or pimping activities, he could have been just a decent guy who would give in to Mary kelly asking for money on a few occassions.
Of course that Gh may not have been the real Gh, but i would seriously doubt thats the case.
Leanne.
You seem to make a huge point about Lord Mayors day and that every single Londoner was hugely excited about the event.
Lord Mayors day was held in London yesterday but was very low key, obviously life then was very dreary so more intrest would have been evident but exactly how much is debatable.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi Everyone,
My faith in Dougs ability to be accurate takes a bit of a bashing when I see he called this thread "Bernett First - Daylight Second"
Nice to see old Nunners is keeping us all entertained with his Nunnerisms!
And finally jkuls lnoiu nd jojjkn ls fulwlns spell checker!
Bob |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
I have to agree with some of what AP has said here regarding Barnett.
Although he may not have been her pimp as such, to believe that he didn't approve of Mary's prostitution and tried to take her away from the life just makes him look incredibly stupid or Naive or both!
These one room furnished rents in this area were well known and notorious for one reason and one reason only....that they were specifically for working prostitutes! M'Carthy covers up the fact he was renting to a prostitute by saying that he was under the impression MJK and Barnett were a married couple, a standard line fed to the police, trollied out time and time again by these landlords.
The police of the time knew full well what was going on in such rents but were powerless to do anything about it, even to the point of being afraid to report such goings on in them and certain lodging houses as they were supposed to do, possibly to Uncle Charles as wasn't he heading up the lodging house inspections at the time?
Debra
(Message edited by dj on November 13, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
G'day,
I've been reading a report of William Acton written in 1870 on the 'moral, social and sanitary aspects of prostitution' plus pages from James Greenwood's 'The Seven Curses of London 1869'.
Acton's report tells of brothels, ('Dress Houses'), maintained by brothel-keepers who provided prostitutes with lodgings and clothes in return for a large part of their 'wages of sin'.
Prostitutes, ('Dress-Lodgers') were sent out onto the streets under the guard of servants, ('watchers') if they weren't kept inside the establishment to 'receive visitors'. The prostitutes were rewarded with a small share of their earnings.
A table elsewhere on this Victorian London Website shows that in 1868 there were 126 places in Whitechapel in which prostitutes lodged and 11 coffee houses or places of business that were known to police to be used as brothels.
Greenwood's writings include a conversation with a 'dress-lodger' who says that when they were sent out on the streets there was always a 'watcher' walking behind them or 'on the opposite side of the way.'
I wonder was George Hutchinson ever a 'watcher'?????
LEANNE |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 164
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Ironically in the same reports that talk about the sordid goings on in the types of furnished rents that Barnett and MJK occupied, the Victoria Home in Commercial Street where Hutchinson was lodging ( or locked out from) was being held up as a model Lodging house for the area, strictly only accepting men who had no links to crime or prostitutuion and had a 'decent reputation' but who may have been legitimately out of work, such people as dockside labourers are given as an example.
This was in 1891 though so these may have been changes implemented after 1888 and not necesarily in effect when George Hutchinson lodged there.
Debra |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3247
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Having been off of this all day and finding it here!!!
Right! Barnett was never Mary''s PIMP ...think about it !..... He wouldn't have disappeared when Maria H (or whoever) appeared,and stayed overnight , in Mary's room in that case!
COME on Richard!... Which would you rather do......watch a procession of dignitaries or catch a good murder sight!!!!?
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3248
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Oh God Bob
Forgot to say there was something............
bzvdmzbuzybz slicfhcxjv
Bugger!!!! forgot to say that!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Hi,
Of course Barnett was not a pimp, and neither was Gh.
All George said was 'I was often able to give her a shilling or two, which indicates to me that she was not shy in asking men for any spare cash.
I have been like most of you frequently asked for the price of a cuppa , any spare change , any spare cigarettes, in the street, mostly i say no but on occassions i have obliged but that does not make me a pimp, or a client to a female that might make this request to me.
I cannot see anything wrong with Gh's statement he could only relay what he saw, just because we find flaws in it does not mean its a pack of lies.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Debra
I did find a reference to the Victoria Home in Commercial Street pre-1888, which seemed to suggest it was a respectable lodging house for men uninvolved in criminal activity in that area of Whitechapel.
I've lost that now, but shall see if I can't dig it out again.
Something in my memory seems to tell me that the men had to be abed by a certain hour, otherwise they were on the street for the night.
And lost their bed.
It would be interesting to follow this up, as Hutchinson was out at a very late hour, so late that I would imagine he had been locked out.
In his statement to the police he doesn't say anything about going 'home' but merely that he 'went away'.
Anyways I thought we had established that Hutchinson had a criminal record for thieving gold watches?
Wouldn't that have excluded him from the Victoria Home?
Or was it a happy-clappy place where Whitechapel's roughs were born again as violin playing ice skaters? |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 35
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Going back a bit bit here. Richard wrote:
"I am of the opinion say 80/20 in favour of a morning murder around 9am or later."
Who cried "murder", then, at around 3:45am that night? That's the qustion thus begged by your suggestion. From whence did that cry emanate (elsewhere in Millers' Court) if not from Mary Kelly? Is it a mere coincidence that a cry of "murder" heralded the discovery of a REAL murder a few hours later?
I'm strongly disinclined to think so, especially when we consider the timing of previous murders.
Mr. Astrakhan was, I believe, a conjuration on the part of George Hutchinson. A fabrication, designed to deflect suspicion away from himself. Hutchinson stated that the man entered Millers Court at around 2:30am. For Mr. Astrakhan to have been the ripper, he must have bided his time for an hour and 15 minutes - quelling his insistent urge to kill - before committing the unspeakable at 3:45am.
In short, it seems highly unlikely.
I'm not ruling out Barnett as JTR, but he could not have been Mr. Astrakhan, and it is highly unlikely that he commited the murder at 9.00am or thereafter.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I would be very intrested to know how we have established that Hutchinson had a liking for gold watches.
Also have we any evidence that Reg alleged son of our George that was open enough to appear on BBC Radio in the early seventies, and who agreed to make a statement to Melvyn Fairclough which appeared in his publication 'The Ripper and the Royals' was a fraud.
Mayby I should distrust every witness, every peice of intresting hearsay that has ever been produced, but where would that get us all I ASK..
Regards Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I think part of the problem here, AP , is that people are looking to classify people in terms of black or white, when Whitechapel was a moral shade of grey. It was a hard life, and I think all of these folks slid back and forth between the way they'd prefer things to have been, and they way they had to be...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Sorry Richard
I just don't see Hutchinson with a violin or on skates.
The reference to the liking for gold watches I'll dig out again.
This business with the Victoria Home is complicated, the original reference eludes me, however I do find that it would not have been unusual for a resident to be out as late as 1am - so I got some egg on my face there - as there is a massive case involving the Victoria Home in Commercial Street in 1907 where even Parliament get involved, where a resident of the home on his way there bumps into a prostitute he knows at 1am; and a PC involves himself and assaults the pair of them.
Drinking vast amounts of alcohol (I like this idea!) did not exclude a chap from staying in the Victoria Home, as there is a gigantic drunken kerfuffle involving a resident's banker's check in April of 1890.
There was also a Victoria Home in Leman Street and that confuses the issue. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 36
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
"Also have we any evidence that Reg alleged son of our George...was a fraud."
Not as far as I'm aware, Richard.
I don't believe Reg Hutchinson was a fraud at all, but two possibilities present themselves here. The first being that George William Topping Hutchinson exaggerated the extent of his involvement in the murders to his son.
The other alternative - not often put forward - is that more than one George Hutchinson was aquainted with the victims. It's not at all unlikely. The name George Hutchinson was by no means uncommon, and many of the victims had a wide circle of acquaintances.
Reg Hutchinson never mentioned the name Mary Kelly, and he appeared to claim ignorance concerning the astrakhan sighting. He never said "My father always told me he followed this dodgy-looking suspect". He was simply shown the witness statement, assumed that the witness and his father were one and same, and drew conclusions accordingly.
GWTH may well have been acquined with *another* victim and may have answered a few police questions. In this respect, he was your average Spitalfields resident - quizzed along with his neighbours.
Consider also the newspaper depiction of Astrakham Man in which the "suspicious" Hutch was also featured. It is reasonable to assume that this sketch was based loosely on the witness' real appearence, and as such, it does not depict a 22-year-old but someone at least ten years older with a heavyish moustache.
Finally, we have Reg's description of his father. A plumber (I think?) who was rarely, if ever, out of work. Contrast this with OUR Hutchinson's predicament of late 1888 - that of an unemployed groom and general labourer. Quite simply, they do not tally.
(Message edited by BenH on November 13, 2005) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
First of all although I take the subject of 'Jack' very seriously [sad] I am not wearing blinkers and i am very much open minded.
I tend to Favour Barnett as her killer, I Have a feeling that he also was responsible for the others although that could be not so.
To answer your question.
I Accept that a cry was heard around 4am that morning, but there is a solid explanation for that. not as some people have claimed Mjk discovering a body, but something much more straightforeward.
According to Lottie the woman occupying Marys Room two years after the event she when interviewed by the canadian reporter Kit Watkins reported kelly had a nightmare in October that she was being murdered, and because of this was scared to go out on the streets alone at night
This was proberly the result of Barnetts explicit readings of the newspapers to her.
Why then is it not possible that finding herself alone without sleepovers that night she had a recurrence of that nightmare, which awoken her with the cry 'Oh Murder'but upon discovery that it was a dream no further cry was heard.
You are correct in saying Mr astracan was unlikely to have killed her because of the time delay,we know that Mr Blotchy face could not have done so because of Hutchinsons sighting.
As I have said many times before the statements Of Hutchinson and Maxwell have a common denominator which make it impossible for her to have been killed between 230 Am -815am.
That is the two statements of 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' and 'Her eyes looked queer like she was suffering from a heavy cold'
Unfortunately I appear to have been the only person on this site to have observed Maxwells account regarding that observation, but i can assure you I have seen that wording in the seventies , I was so adament that it was a find that I wrote to Colin Wilson, who agreed with me that it would be important if only we could prove the colds existance.
Hope that you find the above intresting.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
With Reference to George Hutchinsons occupation later in life a plumber by trade following his fathers footsteps, just a thought when I was twenty two years old I was a Tannery worker[ hides and Maggots] now many years later I work for one Europes biggests Bookmakers.
Now that is a contrast
Not to mention Hepworths mens Tailors, and even a cinema projectionist.
Regards Richard. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 37
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hey Richard,
I did indeed find the above interesting and appreciate your sharing it with us.
Alas, I cannot share your opinion that MJK dreamed about murder, shouted murder as a consequence of the dream, then subqequently GOT murdered. The sheer coincidental nature of your suggestion tends to rule it out as credible, for me at least.
A more credible possibility to entertain is, I suggest, one that involves MJK screaming murder because she considered herself to be in imminent peril of her life; one that involves an intruder, seeking the opportune moment to enter the room and strike, as opposed to a "last client" who was content to vascillate for an hour or more before attacking.
"the statements Of Hutchinson and Maxwell have a common denominator which make it impossible for her to have been killed between 230 Am -815am."
Unless, of course Hutchinson was lying and Maxwell was mistaken in her indentification of MJK. Certainly, this is my take on the matter.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 165
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
For anyone interested here's the thread with the report of a GH stealing a watch, scroll down to AP's post of Oct 7th.
../4922/8061.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Ben,
Several points here all specualtion is in the eye of the beholder, and for that reason will not be accepted by many people.
However.
Lets analyze Lotties recollections, she claims to have been a friend of Kellys who at the time of the murder lived further down the court, she recollects her conversation with Mary and the mention of a nightmare which Kelly stated she had in which she was being murdered.
That nightmare would have occured on the very bed she was killed on.
Lottie mentions that kelly said 'mayby I will be next as i hear the 'Ripper' is ripe in this area and proceeded to laugh it off.
Lottie was horrified, for she said to Kit' Sure enough 'She was the next to go' which indicates that the dream must have occured after the double event therefore October.
Barnett was living with Mary during that period and as her partner obviously would have relayed her night experience to him.
On the last week of her life she has stop overs with her for a couple of nights but as far as we know the wednesday and Thursday she had no-one.
I believe the main reason she had encouraged her female friends to stay with her was.
a]a fear of spending nights alone in that sordid room
b]Mayby just mayby a fear of Barnett.
On the eve of her death Barnett called to see her saying [ wrongly[ that he had no money[ why Bother call] although he admits to playing cards in a lodging house.
He also would have known that that evening she was going to be in that room alone as Mrs Harvey said in his presence 'Then I shall not be seeing you again Mary jane'
He also knew that by saying he had ;No Money' she was likely to venture out that night to try and obtain some.
Therefore giving her every chance to be accosted by the Whitechapel murderer.
My assumption is being that she was alone that night and possibily after Mr astracan left after 3am she being alone in that abode of hers fell asleep and because of her fear of staying alone had a reoccurence of that nightmare, which awoken her with a scream which considering the theme of the past nightmare is not surprising.
She then was awoken finally by Catherine Pickerts knock at 800am which resulted in her dressing if not already and leaving the room feeling unwell and vommiting just before Maxwell appeared on the scene.
Speculation but taking every point into account not at all imposible.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Thanks Debra,
One major flaw in AP post of october 7th, that being George Hutchinson of millers court fame was aged 22years at the time of the murder not 33years as that watch stealing Hutchinson is mentioned. wrong man...
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5283
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
Please could you tell me your source for saying that the Miller's Court GH was 22 at the time of the murder?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
The source comes from the alleged son of GH Reg in 'The Ripper and the royals'
According to him his father was born on the 1/10/1866 he was twenty two years old the day
after the double event.
Natural accusations of his integriety will follow, but why disbelieve , he was traced in the seventies to appear on the radio and he was available to be traced when Fairclough was researching his book.
I believe the man.
Regards Richard. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 38
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
"He also knew that by saying he had ;No Money' she was likely to venture out that night to try and obtain some."
But according to Mary Cox, this would have been an impossible task for Mary Kelly - drunk and insensible as she was that night. She could not have ventured out, even she wanted to.
"Speculation but taking every point into account not at all imposible."
Yes, but when speculating, it is essential to seek out what is "most probable" as opposed to what is "not at all impossible".
Speculation is fine, as long as it permits the "speculator" to arrive at the most logical and rational conclusion. And what would be such a conclusion? :
"Oh look! It's a horrible murderer with a knife! I'd better shout "murder" and alert everyone in the locality to my immediate peril."
THAT is the most logical and rational explanation. Not only is it "not impossible", it is the "most probable" explanation.
"George Hutchinson of millers court fame was aged 22years at the time of the murder.."
That's if you accept George William Topping Hutchinson as he of "Millers Court fame", which I don't for reasons expounded upon above. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
But she did venture out that night, I question the amount of drink she exhumed, she was not a late stayer out normally she used to leave her main drinking hole and normally have a nightcap in another pub before venturing home, but on the eve of her death she was seen walking home alone but according to reports was accosted proberly By Mr Blotchy complete with Ale, and never frequented her last stop.
Also according to Gh she was only spreeish, and lets not forget she was in great form although annoying to the residents, she did a karoke number 'Only a voilet' for around a hour.
The only Puzzle is why did she leave her room after Blotchy left and not retire to bed.
Answer .
She hated that room .
Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
"The only Puzzle is why did she leave her room after Blotchy left and not retire to bed.
Answer .
She hated that room . "
Dear God, Richard - this woman, along with the other victims, was an ADDICT. Much of what they did was driven by their need for drink. They weren't social drinkers; they were hardcore alcoholics. Almost all the 'inexplicable' behavior of these women has a very simple explanation.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 166
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
My grandmother was convinced that she was related to the American actor William Gargan and told stories of his families visits to her home to prove it. I am sure she would have collaborated on a book about him too had she been asked!...thing is she wasn't related to him! she was related to a William gargin who's family ended up in America.. but a totally different guy.
I was recently in touch with other distant cousins of my grandmothers family who we have never met or had contact with before and they had been fed the same stories through their family!...but my grandmother wasn't lying, it was what she had been led to believe.
Debra
(Message edited by dj on November 13, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5285
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
There was a George W.T. Hutchinson registered Lambeth December quarter 1866. But this doesn't prove that Reg's dad was our GH.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
The case I am discussing is that of Mary Kelly.
We must remember her age she was very young and high spirited.
When Barnett lived with her and in full time employment she lived a sober life, she according to her friends was a class above the normal in that area, she helped women not as fortunate as her many times.
Sure she was a prostitute but only resumed that way of life after Barnett left his main employment.
When one is unhappy or worried in ones life throughout generations alcohol has been a regular consolar, I do not see Kelly as a downtrodden unfortunate like the others , she went out in the evening after Barnetts departure dressed in jacket dress and hat to eleviate her problems and just to exist.
She was not a angel by any means, but a Hardcore alcoholic especially in her case going by her age, and by the people who knew her No.
Richard. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
"a Hardcore alcoholic especially in her case going by her age, and by the people who knew her No. "
Richard, no one wants to speak ill of the dead, especially a murder victim. It's human nature, and repeated throughout the Case.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Robert,
I will never be able to convince everbody[ even anybody] that Gh aged 22years was the man in question.
First of all son Reg appeared [ take my word for it] on BBC radio in the early to mid seventies. entitled something like 'The man who saw Jack'
The programme spoke of the night of kellys death and presented the statement by a man Called George Hutchinson.
After a reflection on events the son of the man in question was interviewed this was absolutely the son of GH, Amongst other things he mentioned that his father was paid money by the police the sum of around Five pounds for his efforts in assisting , his son also mentioned that his fathers biggest regret was that dispite a major effort he was unable to assist in the capture of the perpretrator.
As faircloughs informant repeating the same information many years later there can be no doubt that this is the same man, and Gh aged 22years was the man in question. or am i going mad.
[Dont answer that]
Regards Richard. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 167
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Richard
>>When Barnett lived with her and in full time employment she lived a sober life<<
But previous to their arrival in Miller's court weren't Barnett and MJK, by Barnett's own admission, evicted from other lodgings due to drunkeness and owing rent, I presume Barnett was in employment then, so what where they spending money on instead of the rent?
Debra |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
I was waiting for someone to mention that episode, as i stated Mjk, and for that matter JB were no saints[ although Barnett appears to have come across as one]
They were both young and we do not know the particular standard that was required in that said lodgings.
It is no secret that Barnett frequented Pubs, his main objection was Kellys way of life when times got harder.
We have all got in trouble throughout our lives doing stupid acts , a few benders does not make them a bad couple.
Richard. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 168
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
But enough benders that they couldn't afford their rent in their previous lodgings and had mounted up arrears at Miller's court too, far more arrears than the length of time Barnett was out of work if I am not mistaken. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
My this thread is busy tonight, the mystery of the rent arrears is curious i must admit, according to MCcarthy she owed or he owed, I say that because according to the landlord she came to live with a man called Kelly alias Barnett some 8 months previous therefore he would according to that statement to the Times November 10th 88 be the tenant and therefore liable to any rent due. the sum of approx 29shillings so at 4/6d per week approx 6.5 weeks which would date back to late september, but of course the amount owed could have stretched back over the previous 8 months.
Obviously whilst Barnett was employed as a fish porter ie if the said Barnett has been pinpointed accurately his wages would have been sufficiant to have paid the rent, but when he lost his job and began costermonging[ again if we have the right Barnett] his wages may have fell somewhat unpredictably.
We do simply not know why the rent became overdue, Kelly could have overspent or Barnett may have drank it who knows.
No answer to this one.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hi,
Just a afterthought yours truely being in the gambling industry, mayby he[ Barnett ] enjoyed the odd game of cards, which i can assure you[ from previous experience can on occassions empty ones pockets.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Sorry, Sir Robert, your post just popped up now for some reason.
I agree with your sentiment.
It is possible to track an individual through this mass of information, and see that individual act with a bravery and honesty that moves you to tears; and then five minutes later find the same individual acting in the most despicable manner one could imagine.
That is life.
But in the LVP much of this murder and madness had as its sad base a simple economic need to survive.
I suppose that is why I am so luke warm about ascribing modern motives to crimes that took place then.
I see a butchered corpse I see a disposal motive.
I see a woman ripped to bits I see an economic crime rather than a sexual one.
A real lesson to me was to examine the situation regarding indecent exposure in the LVP and now.
Take a year off and search every index possible, you will find two or three cases a year during the LVP; and then search now.
Millions of them.
The working class men of the LVP didn't have the time or inclination to expose themselves, they were too busy trying to get a pint, a fag and some bread on the table.
Serious sexual crime is a modern leisure activity. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 39
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
What did you make of my previous suggestions concerning George W.T. Hutchinson?:
I wrote: "The other alternative - not often put forward - is that more than one George Hutchinson was aquainted with the victims. It's not at all unlikely. The name George Hutchinson was by no means uncommon, and many of the victims had a wide circle of acquaintances.
Reg Hutchinson never mentioned the name Mary Kelly, and he appeared to claim ignorance concerning the astrakhan sighting. He never said "My father always told me he followed this dodgy-looking suspect". He was simply shown the witness statement, assumed that the witness and his father were one and same, and drew conclusions accordingly."
You'll notice here that I accuse neither men - George WT OR his son, Reg - of fraudulence. I can cheerfully accept that 22-year-old George may have been a passing acquaintance of one of the victims. He may even have been quizzed by the police about some aspect of the murders (along with everyone else in Whitechapel), but I do not believe he was the George Hutchinson who signed THE witness statement. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 2:41 am: |
|
G'day,
DEBRA: 'Although he may not have been her pimp as such, [BARNETT], to believe that he didn't approve of Mary's prostitution and tried to take her away from the life just makes him look incredibly stupid or Naive or both!'
Well, Debra, I think he was a little 'stupid'. Naive is a better word. Alot of 'husbands' then had to turn a blind eye to their partner's prostitution: 1. because it was impossible to stop and 2. because they needeed the extra income. But a look at Batnett's childhood reveals that his mother deserted her 5 children in the harsh East End shortly after his father died.
I read a report that said that it was common for Irish-immigrant widows to resort to prostutuion as the only means available to them. Joseph Barnett had lost the most important female in his life once to the profession and he was determined not to loose another.
I can't say that Hutchinson was definately a 'watcher' nor that Barnett was definately not a pimp, but the first accusation shouldn't be ignored and the second is highly unlikely!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 14, 2005) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
I Respect your point about Gh in saying that there may have been more than one George some way or other connected to the witness brigade.
However it is a fact that a George Hutchinson was a witness in the kelly case, it is also a fact that he and a detective [detectives] were despatched around the area to try and spot the man.
Now as Regs dad told him that he had received a payment from the police for his efforts and that the man that he saw resembled someone higher up in the land it is not hard to aquaint that the man questioned by Abberline was likely to have been the father of the late Reg.
The observation alone that Gh [ if the father of Reg?] was only a couple of years younger then Mary Jane indicates also a possible knowledge of each other.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I'm afraid we are being bombarded by Nunnerisms again.
Richard offers as proof that George Topping Hutchinson is in fact George Hutchinson, because his son says he was!
No Richard as I keep telling you proof is something tangible.
You keep banging on about a radio programme, that no one else can recall and the BBC has no record of broadcasting but we are expected to accept this as fact because - well you say it is!
That's not fact that's a Nunnerism.
And as has been pointed out myriad times before even if you could prove such a broadcast existed what would it prove? Precisely nothing! Only that some man named Reg believes that his father was once was involved in the JTR case.
Which amounts in the proof stakes to ZERO!!!!
Is there any evidence that your GTH is not the GH. Yes handwriting comparison between the wedding certificate of GTH and the GH who signed the statement shows they are different.
Now this isn't a lot of evidence but it is some!!!
You've really got to stop banging on about Reg and his Dad unless you can show there is some link - no matter how faint-between GTH and GH OTHER than ' Well he said it so it must be true!!!'
Bob Hinton |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
G'day RICHARD,
* Nightmares occur exclusively during periods of rapid eye movement, (REM).
* REM periods are at least 10 minutes long.
* About every 90 minutes during sleep our brain switches between non-REM sleep and REM sleep.
If we believe that the scream of "OH MURDER"heard at 3:45a.m. was the end of Mary's 10 minute REM added to 90 minutes of sleep, we must take the clock back to 2:05a.m. (believing that to be the time that she fell asleep).
But George Hutchinson claimed to have seen her at 2:00a.m. Then he had a conversation with her when she asked for sixpence, she went away towards Thrawl Street, the other man met her, walked down Dorset Street and stood at the corner for 3 minutes. I put the time of them entering Kelly's room at about 2:15a.m. (But she was supposed to have fallen asleep 10 minutes earler!)
Have you tried to prove your point this way?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
I am not saying the word of Reg is Proof...
Just that if Reg is being honest, then regardless what you believe then his father is almost certain to be the Gh in question.
With reference to the radio programe'The man who saw Jack' or somthing similiar, i can only repeat that i heard the airing, it is not a nunnerism, it was aired around 8pm mid seventies around 73/74, and if the BBC have no trace then the records are not complete.
So what you state.
Some guy called Reg claims his father was Gh, this person was the same person that gave Melvyn Fairclough a interview in May 1992 nearly twenty years after the elusive broadcast, there can be no doubt regarding this as it is precisely that same character reference that was aired on that show.
I grant you there are a lot of sons of men called George Hutchinson living in this world, but not many of them would suggest that there father was tied up in these murders and be able to relay details such as he relayed.
I'm sorry Bob its a shame Reg is no longer with us to give more credence.
Nobody on this site or anyone living at this stage can ever supply prove of anything, i can only offer my opinions based on my intuition, and personal recollections and if that be a case of Nunnerisms then so be it.
Incidently the phrase Nunners etc I find slightly offensive it reminds me of overgrown schoolboy banter.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
You make a excellent point, i must admit i am not a authority on sleep patterns and occurances of nightmares
If your assumptions can be verified by a leading expert that being it is impossible for someone to experience a nightmare within say 30/45 minutes after falling asleep then i will gladly dispose of the Nightmare theory.
Watch this space.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:38 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
Just type 'nightmare' into your search engine, and away you'll go!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3254
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
Hi Richard-
Where is it written that Maria Harvey said,"Then I shall not be seeing you again Mary Jane" ?, I can find no record of this,presumably if it was uttered then it came from Barnett's 'statement',don't recall it though.
This would seem to be a highly portenteous comment indeed!!
Suzi |
