|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 3:12 am: | 
|
G'day Mike,
Take a look at this link from a Victorian London Website describing Petticoat Lane in the mid 19th Century. It reveals what sort of a place it was and the type of people it attracted:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/markets/petticoatlane.htm
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2082
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 7:41 am: |
|
Jason
Yes, out in 'the field' notebooks would have been used. However, Hutchinsons statement was made at the station, and would seen to be in the prescence of others, not just Abberline. Notebooks may have been used but I think official forms would have been more likely.
I can understand all the factors Harry states (tiredness, stress etc) and I can understand the need for speed, the urgency. However, urgency sometimes reults in a sloppy statement, which when all is said and done, Hutchinsons statement is slopply put together. Mistakes are rife (Queens Head error) and relevant informantion missed. Thats not Hutchinson fault of course.
I just cant help but feel that if a little more time was taken then more information may, note the may, have come to light which would verify (or not) his statement at least....capture Kellys murderer at most.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
with your post above in mind.
how many witness statements would the police have been having to deal with in relation to this - if we take into account cranks etc?
"The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 148
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
No not at all! Sarah Lewis had already answered any possible questions anyway with: "I cannot describe him."
How was Hutchinson to know that she was telling the truth?
How was Hutchinson to know that Lewis' apparent inability to describe the wideawake-hatted man was not just another example of premeditated ploy, designed to lull the ripper into a false sense of security?
Any question such as: "What sort of age was he?" could only have been a guess and the police couldn't afford to waist more time with hunches!
Right, but an answer akin to "he was about 25" would tend to rule out anyone over 55, wouldn't it? Why do you think this question is asked so often in police inquiries, Leanne? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 5:47 am: |
|
G'day Ben,
If Hutchinson was 'looking up the court' as Sarah Lewis entered the court, I'm sure he would have been aware of how long she glanced at him for as she passed.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 04, 2006) |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 294
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 3:13 am: |
|
If Lewis was able to see the direction of his gaze,surely she had a better look at his face than is currently believed.
As both were just a few yards from each other,he would be able to judge,by looking to her,how much of a sight she had of him.
She could follow the direction of his eyes,and he was in shadow.Food for thought there. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi All,
If Hutch was Jack, and knew he was seen by a woman while he was loitering as if "waiting or looking for someone", ie in a way that could seem suspicious at such a late hour, he nevertheless went ahead and killed Mary in her nearby room, not caring that this witness could mean trouble for him if she remembered him later or, worse, knew who he was.
So I'm not sure that a guilty Hutch would have worried enough to come forward and admit his presence there, on the strength of the very worst Sarah Lewis could do to him - ie testify to his presence there. That wouldn't, by itself, single him out from every other man in the vicinity that night as the wanted murderer.
Just like Lawende, it would be at most a case of someone seeing a man who was close in time and space to a murder. No one felt compelled to come forward Hutch-style after the double event. On the contrary, Jack kept a very low profile for several weeks.
If, on the other hand, Hutch was no killer, then the smallest twinge of guilt for failing to see or counteract the danger Mary was in, together with a gnawing worry that if he did nothing he'd be in big trouble himself, can explain why he was prompted to tell his story.
Liars can often get away with some very tall tales if basic details of a story are true. Assuming Hutch lied in his statement, possibly to add the kind of detail designed to take attention from his own suspicious behaviour, that doesn't prove his basic story false and it doesn't make him a serial killer either. If he was up to no good that night, I wouldn't expect him to be the sort of chap who told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I think Leanne hits the nail on the head. Why would Jack the Ripper (aka Hutch) present himself at the police station with a totally bogus account that was unprovable and unsatisfactory at best, unbelievable at worst, and give the police the opportunity 'to secure a full description of himself'? Out of concern that Sarah Lewis might not have done a good enough job of it herself, perhaps? 
What would have happened when the urge next came over him to murder and mutilate? Apparently, he said to himself, "Damn it! I'll have to behave myself for the rest of my days, now the coppers know my face" - because he stopped himself doing it after Mary.
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
G'day,
'If Hutch was Jack, and knew he was seen by a woman while he was loitering as if "waiting or looking for someone", ie in a way that could seem suspicious at such a late hour, he nevertheless went ahead and killed Mary in her nearby room, not caring that this witness could mean trouble for him if she remembered him later or, worse, knew who he was.'
If Hutchinson was Jack and about murder after a months break, surely he could have waited another 24 hours or more, and murdered following a time when he wasn't seen by a soul.
No body knows if, or how many, aborted murder attempts the Ripper experienced.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 05, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 150
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Hutchinson may not have appreciated at the time the extent to which Sarah Lewis had registered not only his appearence, but his facial expression. He may have comforted himself with the notion that the close encounter was nothing more than a close shave. She may have noticed him before he noticed her. Upon learning of Sarah Lewis' evidence, one can envisage Hutchinson cursing his luck as it dawned upon him that the laundress had got a better look of him that he fully realised at the time - Wideawake notwithstanding.
No one felt compelled to come forward Hutch-style after the double event.
Well, Hutchinson could not very easily have injected himself into the police enquiries by admitting that he was Lawende's suspect, for example. The timing, when analysed properly, renders the likelihood of this man not being the ripper remote in the extreme, and as such, an admission from Hutchinson would be imprudent.
Similarly, he would ill-advised to admit to the police: "I was the man who physically abused a soon-to-be-murdered Ms. Stride, and yes, it was me who hurled anti-semitic abuse at a passer-by."...for obvious reasons. Inferentially, he cannot admit to being PC Smith's or William Marshall's man because such an admission would inevitably reintroduce Israel Schwarz (which, as I demonstrated, would spell trouble.)
Consideration must also be given to the possibility that Mary Kelly was the intended final victim, in which case, coming forward as a result of witnesses from previous murders would prevent him from fulfilling his ultimate goal.
Why would Jack the Ripper (aka Hutch) present himself at the police station with a totally bogus account that was unprovable and unsatisfactory at best, unbelievable at worst, and give the police the opportunity 'to secure a full description of himself'?
Because he did not know the extent of Sarah Lewis' observations. All he knew was that Sarah Lewis had looked him in the face.
What would have happened when the urge next came over him to murder and mutilate?
See my fourth paragraph. I know of no murders of comparable style and brutality that occured post-Millers Court.
Best Regards,
Ben |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 171
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
We know from the horrors perpetrated upon Mary just what the Ripper was capable of doing and what he wanted to do. In the murders prior to Mary's, it appears that he never had the time or opportunity to carry out similar mutilations for fear of being seen or caught. That fear was strong enough to make him stop before he had his fill and strong enough to make him stop even though he had begun to receive whatever sensations he derived from his acts. It would seem to me that if GH were the Ripper and had any fear whatsoever that he had been seen, he would have stopped and gone out another night to try his luck again.
c.d. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 3:02 am: |
|
Hutchinson had to face the fact,that like every other male in the vicinity of Dorset street,he might at some time be questioned by the police.This would be especially so if he was an aquaintance of Kelly of some years standing,as he states.
If he had come with the same story,say a week or ten days later,and then only in response to the police contacting him,would Aberline then be prepared to believe him?Would anyone?
Why does a person hesitate to come forward,and then with a story so obviously false.Why introduce a character and a victim meeting in such an unrealistic manner,unless it is to throw suspicion away from himself.
A violent murder was committed that night,and Hutchinson was spotted at the scene.My opinion is that he was the midnight visitor also,and was spotted on that occasion too,in the company of the said victim.Two reasons to cast suspicion elsewhere.?
Killers come forward as witnesses for many reasons,and for many reasons kill when they know they will be the prime suspect.
There is nothing that Hutchinson said or did,that would exclude him from being the killer of Kelly. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 5:13 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: 'Hutchinson had to face the fact,that like every other male in the vicinity of Dorset street,he might at some time be questioned by the police.' But how could the police have known that Hutchinson was in Dorset Street that morning? It was he who told them. Unless he feared that the police would question all the men at the Victorian Home in Commercial Street......Not likely!
'My opinion is that he was the midnight visitor also,and was spotted on that occasion too,in the company of the said victim.' So do you believe that Hutchinson was the man with: "a blotchy face, carrotty moustache, clear chin, a billycock hat and a pot of ale"? And then, as Mary Ann Cox got a good look at him, he changed his hat to a wideawake? Maybe it was fear of recognition by Mary Ann Cox that stopped him from speaking out at the inquest, not Sarah Lewis!
BEN: 'Consideration must also be given to the possibility that Mary Kelly was the intended final victim, in which case, coming forward as a result of witnesses from previous murders would prevent him from fulfilling his ultimate goal.'
So am I right in saying that you believe that he went to the Police station to turn himself in once his ultimate goal had been forfilled, but changed his mind at the last minute and invented the 'astrakhan' story to get himself out of a tight squeeze?
C.D: 'In the murders prior to Mary's, it appears that he never had the time or opportunity to carry out similar mutilations for fear of being seen or caught.' In the earlier murders he could have studied the murder scenes beforehand, heard anyone approaching and probably had his escape route all worked out. In the Miller's Court case there was only one way out.
'It would seem to me that if GH were the Ripper and had any fear whatsoever that he had been seen, he would have stopped and gone out another night to try his luck again.' I'm glad to say that we agree with each other on that one! If he had an uncontrollable urge to kill at that time, he would have looked for another victim. If Mary Kelly was an intended victim he could have picked another time.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 803
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 7:05 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"If Hutchinson was 'looking up the court' as Sarah Lewis entered the court, I'm sure he would have been aware of how long she glanced at him for as she passed."
Although I can't really believe GH was MJK's murderer, I don't know if this is true. Lewis described him as 'looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out'. So, that was what he looked like, that very behaviour possibly even drew Lewis' attention to him.
Is it not possible that Hutchinson was so caught up in this looking up the court that he only noticed Lewis when she was very close to the entrance to the court? If so, he wasn't aware of how long she had glanced at him for as she passed. And maybe he didn't notice that she looked at him at all, as maybe she didn't openly look at him.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 804
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 7:25 am: |
|
Hi Leanne/Caz,
"'If Hutch was Jack, and knew he was seen by a woman while he was loitering as if "waiting or looking for someone", ie in a way that could seem suspicious at such a late hour, he nevertheless went ahead and killed Mary in her nearby room, not caring that this witness could mean trouble for him if she remembered him later or, worse, knew who he was.'
If Hutchinson was Jack and about murder after a months break, surely he could have waited another 24 hours or more, and murdered following a time when he wasn't seen by a soul."
We know Jack took huge risks in the case of Annie Chapman. Even though it was getting light, even though people were about to rise, even though he was in a yard with only one way out, with a man just on the other side of the fence he went ahead and killed and mutilated her.
Again, maybe he was so caught up in his vigil that he didn't notice Lewis until she had reached the entrance to the court and maybe she hadn't openly watched him. So, maybe he thought then that she didn't or wouldn't pose a threat to him. Maybe at that point - if he was Jack - he was so set on killing and mutilating (or even obsessed by it), like he seems to have been in Chapman's case, that he was just unable to abort that mission. I see this as a real possibility, certainly in light of Chapman's murder.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 155
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
So am I right in saying that you believe that he went to the Police station to turn himself in once his ultimate goal had been forfilled
Leanne - No, you are not right in saying that, and I have to wonder where you got this from (?).
I fully agree with your last post, Frank. Good points. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
G'day Ben,
Let me explain: Yesterday you wrote: 'Consideration must also be given to the possibility that Mary Kelly was the intended final victim, in which case, coming forward as a result of witnesses from previous murders would prevent him from fulfilling his ultimate goal.'
I considered it and two possible ways came to mind:
1) That Mary Kelly was the killer's intended target all along, and just before November he thought something like: "Awwww I keep killing the wrong whore, so I can't go to the police station until I get it right!" or
2)That after murdering at least 4 women the killer thought: "I intend to make the next one my final victim, then I'll go to the police station 3 or 4 days later, and invent a wild story!" Please explain exactly what you mean.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 08, 2006) |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 300
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 2:59 am: |
|
Leanne,
You have been posting here for a long time,so you may be aware that no two witnesses are likely to percieve the same details,and accurately describe them many hours later.
Hutchinson states an aquaintance of some years standing,so he could expect this might become known to the police.All lodging houses in the vicinity of Dorset St would come under scrutiny at some time.It was reported that the police were attempting to question the occupants,but it took time and there was only so many police available.The longer Hutchinson witheld his story,the less chance of it fooling the police. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 3:45 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Hutchinson states an aquaintance of some years standing,so he could expect this might become known to the police.'
Mary Kelly was a full-time prostitute, before she met Joseph Barnett 18 months before her death! Barnett seemed to take great pride in saving her from that life, but it is likely that she never completely stopped prostitution. Hutchinson said he had known her for about 3 years, and occasionally had given her money, (which sounds like he was a regular client, pimp or 'watcher', but didn't want to admit it.) I dont think the police would have tried to trace and interview ALL of a victim's past clients.
Mary Kelly's ex-lover whom she was still seeing and who sometimes visited her, Joseph Flemming, wasn't interviewed. Don't be fooled in comparing police activity then with now.
Were does it say that all lodging houses in the vicinity of Dorset Street came under scrutiny? It was reported that police interviewed all residents of Miller's Court and perhaps the lodging house opposite.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 5:58 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
There were 13 registered lodging houses on Dorset Street alone and several unregistered, which housed up to 1500 people, (Charles Booth's poverty map, 1889).
The 'Daily Telegraph' November 10, which was included with the official files, stated: 'Detectives searched all the adjacent houses for suspicious characters, but without result.' That was THE ADJACENT houses, which would have taken long enough!
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 158
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
The possibility that I entertained was an altogther less frivolous, less simplictic version of Thought Process No. 2. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi Harry,
Why does a person hesitate to come forward,and then with a story so obviously false.Why introduce a character and a victim meeting in such an unrealistic manner,unless it is to throw suspicion away from himself.
I agree. But your description only makes me think it more likely that Hutch was innocent and desperately trying to extricate himself from a potentially dangerous position.
The idea that Jack the serial killer, who so far had shown himself to be a man of opportunity and cunning determination, who had got away with murder not once but at least four times by November 10th, would come forward at all, let alone with 'a story so obviously false', about two people meeting in 'such an unrealistic manner', seems just as unrealistic to me.
Hutch did his naive best, but it was the best of a man who was no better than he ought to have been.
I think the police probably saw right through him but went through the motions anyway. And I don't think Jack was in there to be seen.
IMHO Jack would not have risked showing his face with a tale twice as believable, although he would have done well to have one ready, in case of more dire emergencies.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 160
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
In 2006, it is all too easy to acknowledge and allude to Hutchinson's glaringly obvious falsehoods. Remember though, that we accepted him as a credible witness for over a century, and certainly never considered him in the capacity of a suspect.
Having thus admonished ourselves for this collective oversight, we cannot then dismiss Hutchinson as a credible suspect on the grounds that: "His statement is so obviously nonsense, and Abberline, noticing this, must have invstigated him thoroughly."
We never questioned it for 100 years, so why do we expect such greater powers of discernment from Inspector Abberline?
Initially, the suggestion that Jack the Ripper would just waltz into a police staton must have seemed risible in the extreme. We wouldn't expect him to do that. We certainly wouldn't predict it.
But is an "unpredictable" criminal an incompetent one? I would suggest the opposite is the case.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4312
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Caz,
I have to agree with you on that one.
Hutchinson, dodgy or desperate as he may have been (or whatever his motives were), I find it hard to see him as Jack the Ripper or at least even Mary Kelly's killer (yes, you know I don't believe for a moment that Kelly was a Ripper victim).
Bottom line is, yes, I think Hutchinson was a simple ordinary man, unemployed, who somehow found himself tangled up in an incriminating context and had to find a way to throw any suspicions away from himself (after all, we are talking about a gruesome mutilation murder here and the possibility of ending up as being arrested as Jack the Ripper - and if that would have been the result he wouldn't even have survived the mobs that attacked and harrassed every suspect being escorted to the police station).
I see no evidence of he himself being responsible for any serious criminal act, although one does wonder - if he was the man that was witnessed standing there - why he seems to focus his attention on Miller's Court and stare into it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi Guys.
if George William Topping Hutchinson aged 22 years was the man in question[ which i Believe] and his son Reg can be believed then it is conceivable that one of two scenerios is possible.
A] George was describing a actual man he saw that morning of the 9th November even if it sounds ludricous.
B] George Huchinson relayed a description to the police depicting a man of decent appearence that was elaborated to the press to throw the culprit off scent.
To explain.
The entire police force of London regardless of area were in a dire predicament, the latest murder was one of inexplicable savagery, and the powers that be were watching there every move.
If George Hutchinson relayed a exact description to Abberline and co, and was not tampered with then his man has to have a explanation for being in that district at that time of morning dressed in that way.
I Have stated the obvious in the past that the person seen was en-route to the Lord mayors show.
This has been scorned at,even though the dress code would have been apt.
But my problem with that is if a witness to a lead up to a murder presents himself and positively says that he can identity 'The Man' seen with the victim. 'Why would the police issue a exact description of the possible assailiant, surely this would entice the guilty party to either change that appeareance, or lie low, which would not enhance police investigations.
They surely would only issue a exact appearence if the attire was described but not a positive identification was possible.
But in the case of Gh, the man could be identified.
i sincerley believe that our George relayed to the police on the 12th a exact description of a man he saw accost MJK, but although the description was on the right lines was not released in that mode in the hope that the killer would have a false sense of security.
This is why i believe Gh, and the reason why he was paid the sum of 'One hundred shillings' the fact that with his knowledge the statement was over done, and his efforts to assist the police on proberly more then one occassion.
Desperate situations [ like the police found themselves in] can involve cunning tactics.
Regards Richard. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
Caroline
With regards to your post on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:21 am:
Very well said. I couldnt have defended GH any better myself. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 164
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I Have stated the obvious in the past that the person seen was en-route to the Lord mayors show.
At 2 O'clock in the morning? Why? What time did the Lord Mayors Show start?
Cheers,
Ben |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
"I Have stated the obvious in the past that the person seen was en-route to the Lord mayors show.
This has been scorned at,even though the dress code would have been apt. "
Only thing obvious is the scorn this deserves. Have you considered the time AM would have been strolling through one of the worst neighborhoods in Whitechapel?? The point has been raised in several books as well as the Casebook that Dorset Street was an area the police only patrolled in pairs, if at all.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 304
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:11 am: |
|
Leanne,
Given time,the police would have broadened their search,not just because of the Kelly killing,but the ripper murders in total.Commercial Street with its lodging houses,was central to the killings.As far as possible,the police would again in time,seek all who had aquaintance with Kelly and the other victims.It was standard police work then as now,I do not confuse the time periods.Hutchinson by coming forward,eliminated the need to find him.
Caz,
Every person,I think,would try to extricate themselves from a potentially dangerous posistion.Isn't that what I and others have been saying about Hutchinson?.That is what he was trying to do.Would he do it for anyone but himself.He was at Crossinghams for a reason.A woman was later found murdered about 30-40 yards from where he was standing.His story is not credible,and like it or not it alibi's himself.
It is not unusual for killers to deny the deed,and supply alibi's.
It does not prove he was in Kelly's room later that night,but there are grounds for suspicion.
There is no information that specifically indicates he could not have murdered and mutilated Kelly.
How far will person's go to absolve themselves.Not too long ago,here in Australia,a tearfull husband and father appeared on television asking the publics support to find his wife and child who had disapeared.He is now serving life for their murder.
In a sense,isn't this what Hutchinson was doing.
He goes to the police and papers,with a story of a person who was never there,because he himself was the guilty party.That is my opinion. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi,
'His story was not credible'
My question is 'Why not'?.
First of all we have to determine the actual identity of George hutchinson.
Is there any one out there in casebook land that can positively state that George William Topping Hutchinson born october 1st 1866 was not the person who knew MJK.
Taking in account the word of his son that father mentioned many times in the twenties/thirties that he was interviewed by the police as he knew one of the victims.
Can there be any doubt that this son named Reg hutchinson was relaying the truth about his long dead father on a Radio production in the early 1970s, and repeated that account some twenty years later in the 'Ripper and the Royals'.
if Reg was being totally honest then his dad George was no more a killer, stalker, pimp, etc then I am , and none of those descriptions corresponde with my CV.
Instead of condeming Gh, why not seriously try to analyze his description and the implications it may imply, for the simple question is 'If George saw the man described [ and it was not a ploy by the police to mislead the culprit as discussed on another thread] then a explanation why the man seen dressed in that attire was spoted by George must have a relevance,
Regards Richard. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 183
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Hi Harry,
I know that you had a long career in law enforcement. If I understand you correctly, your belief is that that there would be no difference in standard police work between then and now. I am wondering what your reaction would have been if you were in Abberline's position back then and you were presented with GH's story. What would you have done following a standard police procedure? Thanks in advance for your answer.
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4328
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Richard,
Get with the program. It has been stated several times now that it is not a question of 'condemning' Hutchinson as a person, but the rather odd features in his statement. No offense, but you are the one who is not analysing here!!!!
The points where Hutchinson's story doesn't hang together have been thoroughly described and listed here several times on different threads. If you have missed them, since you seem totally ignorant of them, please go over them and do some thinking instead of letting you get mislead by a radio show. Hutchinson's story contains bigger holes than a Swiss cheese.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 09, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Ben,
At 2 O'clock in the morning? Why? What time did the Lord Mayors Show start?
Eleven o'clock in the morning, as it had and has done for centuries, as I stated in an earlier posting on this thread. Mr Astrakhan would've looked pretty dishevelled wandering in that wet weather for all that time, even if he hadn't been in Kelly's bed.
If Mr Astrakhan was with Kelly, then it is more likely that he'd left a club and fancied a bit of slumming, rather than getting togged up in the middle of the night for the Mayor's procession to start some nine hours later. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 308
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:19 am: |
|
Richard,
Glen has answered you,so there is no need for me to do so,but I will add this.If you believe Hutchinson was truthfull,why don't you tell us the implication's of his being so,and how it helps the case in general.
C.D.
I had 14 years law enforcement experiance in the Customs and Excise department.Obviously,science has added new dimensions to how officers,in all law enforcement agencies,carry out their duties,and approach the different problems encountered..
Hutchinson,even as a possible witness,had to be proven to have been telling the truth.You do not make snap judgements on anyones honesty.AS far as possible,his statement should have been checked.Any following action would depend on what the enquiries about him,revealed.
You do not have to have law enforcement training to follow or engage in these posts.It is mainly
a matter of common sense,so any training I received,and I have been retired for 25 years come April,counts for nothing.
The reason Barnett and Kelly accessed the door through the window after the key was lost,for example,should be answered by anyone who cares to think about it.
How was Cox able to give such a good description of Kelly's midnight visitor,needs only a layman's interpretation of her evidence,to give a satisfactory reply.
Why did Lewis hear footsteps,but no closing of the door.
Only common sense is needed to answer,and you all have that. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 309
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:26 am: |
|
Richard,
Glen has answered you,so there is no need for me to do so,but I will add this.If you believe Hutchinson was truthfull,why don't you tell us the implication's of his being so,and how it helps the case in general.
C.D.
I had 14 years law enforcement experiance in the Customs and Excise department.Obviously,science has added new dimensions to how officers,in all law enforcement agencies,carry out their duties,and approach the different problems encountered..
Hutchinson,even as a possible witness,had to be proven to have been telling the truth.You do not make snap judgements on anyones honesty.AS far as possible,his statement should have been checked.Any following action would depend on what the enquiries about him,revealed.
You do not have to have law enforcement training to follow or engage in these posts.It is mainly
a matter of common sense,so any training I received,and I have been retired for 25 years come April,counts for nothing.
The reason Barnett and Kelly accessed the door through the window after the key was lost,for example,should be answered by anyone who cares to think about it.
How was Cox able to give such a good description of Kelly's midnight visitor,needs only a layman's interpretation of her evidence,to give a satisfactory reply.
Why did Lewis hear footsteps,but no closing of the door.
Only common sense is needed to answer,and you all have that. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page