|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 7:28 am: | 
|
One of the allegations about Hutchinson is the fact that he did not come forward until after learning of being spotted by Sara Lewis, standing opposite Millers Court. He then fabricated or embellished his account of what he saw that night.
What we do know is that his statement has not disproven. GH was not to know if anyone else would come forward/had recently come forward which would blatantly contradict his sighting. Being found to have lied to the police & putting himself in the site of the murder would have been complete folly.
No person came forward to say they were with Kelly during, or prior to Hutchinsons sighting. For all GH knew, Kelly could have been in company with a number of friends who could have contradicted his statement.
If Kelly had been nowhere near her room at this time, GH would have been proven a liar. The only conclusion i can suggest is that he was either telling the truth or he had been in Kelly's company (by himself) for an hour or two before & after his timed sighting of Kelly and her client. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Dear Jason,
There are many other reasons why GH's can be correct in part. Part of it might be lies part of it might be true!
Simple really.
Bob |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
G'day,
What I want to know, and should have been asked and noted, is what Hutchinson would have done if Mary, her well-dressed client, or both had have appeared again. Hutchinson waited an awfully long time in the cold and wet with no money!
I don't think he was Mary's killer for the same reasons that have been stated for believing he was telling the truth.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 17, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 99
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Hi Jason,
For all GH knew, Kelly could have been in company with a number of friends who could have contradicted his statement
But this whole premise presupposes that GH did not know what Kelly was really doing at the time of the alleged "Astrakhan" sighting.
By installing himself opposite outisde Crossingham's Lodge some time before 2:30am, he would undoubtedly have observed the comings and goings of any potential clientele the Court might have attracted.
By 3:30am, the last straggler, Mary Ann Cox had returned home for the last time. If Hutchinson had then seized the opportune moment to enter the now-desrted Miller's Court and peer into No. 13, he would have found a recumbent, sleeping Mary Jane Kelly.
It is unlikely that he had observed any clients during the past hour, remember, so GH may have comforted himself by reasoning that Kelly had been asleep, alone, for over an hour.
Thus, he would have been free to peddle the Astrakhan falsehood, secure in the knowledge that nobody would contradict his version of events.
Ben |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
Leanne
I suspect Hutchinson did not know what he himself would do. Hutch, imo was simply curious about Mary's client.
We all have a degree of being a "nosey parker" in us. Hutchinson seems "nosier" than most. Short of MJK screaming loudly for her life, our George would not do anything to intervene. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
G'day Jason,
I don't think that he would wait so long in the cold and damp, when he had already got a close look at the man, had no suspicions he was a murderer and would have known what they went into her room to do.
If Hutchinson missed his chance to secure a bed in his regular lodging house, he would have wanted to look for another bed or a vacant place outside to spend the night!
LEANNE |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
I don't think GH was a killer either. But he may have been telling the truth about waiting around for awhile because he said that the man with Kelly gave him a stern look. GH might have been suspicious and waited to see if there would be any kind of trouble. He didn't hear any commotion, so he left.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3413
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
jason-
See the
'Where the hell was Hutch going' thread
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 101
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
"But he may have been telling the truth about waiting around for awhile because he said that the man with Kelly gave him a stern look".
Another detail with has become increasingly bothersome to me. We learn from Hutchinson that he "stooped" down to get a good look at Mr. Astrakhan who then returned a "stern" look.
Would this man have gone on to commit murder after a potential witness had "stooped down" to get a good look at him? The notion is absurd. Sarah Lewis, who entered No. 2 Millers Court (opposite Kelly), never made any reference to any noise or movement through the smashed pane of No. 13 as she passed it that morning - noise and movement which Kelly and Astrkhan would certainly have generated if the latter existed.
A brief note on the "Romford" issue. It should be observed that we only have it on the dubious authority of Hutch himself that he was ever in Romford that day. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
G'day Eddie,
I think he was telling the truth too about waiting for about an hour, but I think that alot more than a stern look would cause him to do that.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 790
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
"A brief note on the "Romford" issue. It should be observed that we only have it on the dubious authority of Hutch himself that he was ever in Romford that day."
Of course you're completely right about this; we only have GH's word for it. But the way I see it is this: what he actually told the police, was that he wasn't in the Whitechapel area until about 2 am. Had he been in the Whitechapel area, this might have been something the police could relatively easily have found out. Certainly from GH's point of view.
There must have been people in Whitechapel who knew him, people in the Victoria Home, people who knew his habits, etc. With this in mind, why would he want to tell the police he had just returned from Romford, while he was actually in Whitechapel?
So, even though I don't buy his story as a whole, I think he may have been telling the truth about having been to Romford.
These are just my take on things, of course.
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
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
"There must have been people in Whitechapel who knew him...With this in mind, why would he want to tell the police he had just returned from Romford, while he was actually in Whitechapel?"
A sound observation. It is perhaps unlikely that he maintained a conspicuous presence in Spitalfields that day. As you correctly point out, he could easily have been observed at the Victoria Home, in the pubs, on the streets etc.
He might have ensured that he was "out of the way" on the day in question, but Romford could have been plucked entirely from the aether.
It is noteworthy, I think, that Hutchinson attempted to account for both his and Kelly's presence on the street in those early hours. He gives his reason: he was returing from Romford, but is also shrewd enough to have us believe that Kelly was on the street for an equally good reason - hence, we have the "I must go and find some money" sillyness.
The ill-discerning reader need only reason to himself: "Oh, I get it it. Kelly was on the street at so unlikely an hour because she wanted MONEY", and hey presto, the story becomes plausible.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Kelly was on the street at so unlikely an hour because she wanted MONEY...
Why was the hour so unlikely? She was an alcoholic prostitute.
The rent was due the following morning, and if Mary didn't care about that, she cared about where her next drink would come from.
There was nothing remotely 'unlikely' about the late hours Polly and Annie kept, out on the street trying to earn doss money, when they met Jack. So what's the big difference with Mary?
Love,
Ill-discerning Caz
X |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3420
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
That is one of the points isn't it about the comings and goings from Millers Ct...the timing..no one thought anything about leaving or arriving at any sort of what we may now consider un-social hours!
Needs must when the devil drives!
(What passes for Well)-discerning Suz
X |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Ben
"Would this man have gone on to commit murder after a potential witness had "stooped down" to get a good look at him?"
Maybe he would or wouldnt have. I however, think Mr. Astrakhan was not the killer. The Ripper, i believe, was a working class local. He was imo a client picked up after Mr Astrakhan. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 255
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Caz,
Nicholls and Chapman were out on the street because they had been refused a place to sleep.Kelly did not have the same problem.There was no need for her to go on the street to earn money for shelter the night she was killed.
All three had had their share of drink for that period,so I doubt that would have been a problem untill well into the next day. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Guys,
Wasnt the 'Romford' story checked out by the Rossers and found to be true?
I maybe wrong. I shall cruise my books tonight.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 103
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Why was the hour so unlikely? She was an alcoholic prostitute."
Precisely. She was an alcoholic, and as alcoholics habitually discover, biology often prevents them from doing that which they originally intended - such as venturing out in "spreeish" fashion, on an inclement evening, when the number of potential clients must surely have been very few. Even if the booze did not physically prevent her from venturing out, it would certainly have given her a disinclination to do so.
Why are we so certain that her business wasn't lucrative that evening? She can't have been as skint as GH would have us believe as Blotchy Face would surely have paid her for her services.
As Harry correctly points out, Mary's predicament that evening was hardly comparable to that of Chapman and Nichols.
Best wishes,
Ben |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 257
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:09 am: |
|
Monty,
As Aberline wrote his comments of Hutchinson's honesty the same evening as the interview,there would not have been much time to investigate.It appears Aberline made a spot judgement,something you ,I and many others might find odd considering the circumstances. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:32 am: |
|
Harry,
I hear you.
Did a little digging around last night. Found nothing in confirmation regarding Hutchinsons Romford story.
However, I did unearth an exchange of E-mails with Stewart Evans on an excellent article he put forward in Ripper Notes. Please see below link.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
sorry to be thick
Romford story?
Jenni
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
G'day Jenni,
Remember Hutchinson said he told Mary Kelly that he had no money to give to her because he spent it all going down to ROMFORD?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 791
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
“It is noteworthy, I think, that Hutchinson attempted to account for both his and Kelly's presence on the street in those early hours.”
You seem to be saying here that GH didn’t actually see MJK. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if so, I think the ‘seeing Kelly’ bit is even more likely to have been true than the ‘Romford’ bit.
Because, if I were Hutchinson and I hadn’t actually seen her then and there, how was I to know that no one else would come forward with a story about having seen Kelly, a story that might have contradicted mine? I don’t think I could have been sure, and so, I don’t think I would have taken the risk. But maybe Hutchinson wasn’t such a bright guy.
Anyway, if I was Hutchinson and I had something to hide (which I think he did), I would have tried to stick to the truth as much as possible. In that view I’m inclined to think he told the truth about just having returned from Romford and having seen Kelly.
Just my views, of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 259
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Monty,
The perfect witness and the perfect interrogater,together with the perfect interview are figments of the imagination,as you and I know.One can be taught techniques of questioning,but there is no school that teaches the layman how to respond,except perhaps the prison institutions.
I too questioned people on a daily basis,as I believe you have yourself,and it is quite easy,due to stress and other factors,to make mistakes that on reflection,and with time no distraction,should not have been made.
Stuart makes some excellent points,but how many of us given the same conditions and faced with the same series of events,would not have made the same mistakes as the people of Whitechapel in 1888. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Harry,
Yep, don’t exist.
Ive been taught two ways to question. Cognitive and managed. Of course your own style or styles are built up by oneself. Me? Either indifferent or ignorant mainly. Depends on the punter and what is going on. One thing for certain, you cannot have a rigid interview plan.
We conduct a series of interviews if needed. Why wasn’t Hutchinson subjected to the same procedure? Was it simply a case of such things not being done or did they feel they had enough out of him?
Too quick and rushed.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Do we know for sure what Hutchinson was subjected to?
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Jenn,
I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true.
Abberlines own words.
Interrogated, not questioned or quizzed....interrogated.
Some heavy questioning I suspect.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
So you think this means a series of interviews?
Do we know how long Hutch was held?
To be clear, i'm not suggesting yourr wrong, I am asking because I respect your opinion!
Jenni
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Jenn,
1 interview.
1 evening.
He would not be held as he was not arrested. He would have been free to leave at any stage. However, Abberlines term interrogated is, in my humble opinion, to be taken that a certain degree of intial suspicion was made of both Hutchinson and/or his statement.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on December 21, 2005)
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Monty,
thank you !
Like on the Bill?!!
That last part WAS a joke!
I wonder if Abberline interogated all his witnesses?
Jenn
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 110
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hey Frank,
Because, if I were Hutchinson and I hadn’t actually seen her then and there, how was I to know that no one else would come forward with a story about having seen Kelly, a story that might have contradicted mine?
If you scroll up to my post of December 17th at "9:24am", I sought to account for precisely this. I would appreciate your thoughts in regard to my conslusions.
Monty, Jenn - I'd be inclined not to invest Abberline's use of the word "interrogate" with too much significance. To me, a policeman who "interrogates" is one who is discerning, thorough and scrutinous - an image that Abberline would certainly have wished to convey. If, however, the word DID betoken suspicion, it would surely have been suspicion that GH was a publicity-seeker, and not a murderer.
Far more worrying is Abberline's "I am of the opinion". Not "his statement must be true BECAUSE"...just an "opinion", and one which he arrived at, no doubt, because his statement appeared, superficially, to corroborate that of Sarah Lewis.
Best Wishes,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
OK. Abberline has an off day and I mean a big time off day. He naively accepts GH's story. He files a report describing GH's story which is then read by his superiors. There response was "sounds good to me." This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Scotland Yard has someone who was the last person to see Mary alive and who quite possibly got a good look at Jack the Ripper!!! He tells a story which any reasonably intelligent person would tend to question and he doesn't have a particulary good reason why he waited outside in the cold. Yet if we are to believe the record he pretty much gets a pass. If this is the case, it goes way beyond incompetence to sheer stupidity! ... or, there were things going on of which we are not aware. I tend to support the latter view.
Harry and Monty,
It appears from your posts that you are involved in law enforcement. Given your training and experience, do you really think that Abberline et al could have screwed up so royally and have been so naive or it is more likely that they investigated much more than we know and found GH to be credible?
c.d. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 262
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:40 am: |
|
C.D.
I retired 25 years ago,but in the years I performed law enforcement duties,officers,senior as well as junior,were occasionly 'Screwing up',myself included.On the other hand,the same officers performed extremely well on other occasions.
When Aberline saw Hutchinson that Monday evening he would have been an extremely tired and stressed individual,a condition when one is prone to make mistakes.
Blame if any,should be placed on the shoulders of the more senior officers,who later read both statements and seemingly missed what most of us today find dubious.
On the other hand,if there were doubts about Hutchinson in some officer's mind,he might have kept quiet in the hope of trapping that individual at some later date,and claiming all the glory himself.
You may find that last statement a bit tongue in cheek,but in all seriousness,such things sometimes happened. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
G'day,
Abberline was obviously of the oppinion that Hutchinson wasn't lying about seeing Kelly go to her room with a well-dressed customer. He was probably efficient at picking when a person was making up his story, and gave his opinion to the official files that George Hutchinson was telling the truth. The official whitechapel murderer files.
If he suspected that Hutchinson was hiding his true reasons for waiting for the well-dressed man to appear, (and was infact going to rob him), that would have been another case and Abberline was just focussed on the Ripper case.
Does that make sense and what do people think?
LEANNE |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
But when Mary was killed Warren had just resigned. That would create a certain amount of chaos in the upper echelons. Maybe Abberline's report didn't get the level of scrutiny it normally would have. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 136
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Harry,
Thank you for your response. I think your assessment of Abberline's condition at the time is probably right on the money. I agree that his condition was one in which someone is more likely to make a mistake or have a lapse in judgment. But here is the problem I have - When I was still learning about the case and read GH's statement, my first reaction was "hey wait a minute, this guy is like Sherlock Holmes, this is just too good to be true. Something is fishy here." Now I have no training in criminal investigations or police work. But here is my question (which no one seems to respond to)- Abberline's report must have been read by and discussed among a number of people. Wouldn't they have had the same reaction that I did? Wouldn't they have talked to Abberline about it? Are we to believe that not one single person at Scotland Yard had doubts about GH? I just can't buy that. Again, I think there are things that went on that we don't know about.
c.d. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on Abberline stating that he believed Hutchinson.
There could be three possible reasons for this:
1. He really did believe Hutchinson and he was correct in this belief.
2. He believed Hutchinson and was incorrect in this belief.
3. He did not believe Hutchinson but stated that he did.
Taking the three points in order.
Looking at GH’s statement clearly it is obvious that a major part of it is fiction. I would maintain that this is not an opinion – it is a fact.
Abberline might have been in the situation where he was literally grasping at straws. Compare this to George Oldfield and the Yorkshire Ripper case. Several people told him that the tapes and letters were false and yet he believed in them utterly.
If Abberline on hearing GH realised that something was wrong what are his options? He could turn to GH and say ‘I don’t believe you’ in which case all GH would have to do is say ‘So what’ and walk out. Or he could give the impression that he did believe him, even to the extent of writing a false report. Why do this? The chances were that anything written in a report would soon be leaked. He would then back up this false report by reporting in person to his superiors that something was amiss and he was chasing it up. There is some indication that this might of happened.
Bob |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 265
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:54 am: |
|
C.D.
Bob has in large part answered your Query.It is only through official files,and later by the writings of certain officers,that we get a glimpse of their thoughts.
Hutchinson gets barely a mention after the initial appearance.He could not have been the Jewish witness,yet he would have if believed,been the principal witness,so I would say his testimony was discounted by the senior officers that surely would have read his statement.Whether he became a person of suspicion to any police officer is another thing.Nothing in writing exists to say he was thought of in that contex.
Only Aberline and a sergeant actually interviewed Hutchinson,so any higher officer would have only what is available today,his and Aberline's statement ,to form an opinion as to Hutchinson's honesty.Not one of them, officially or privately,as far as I am aware,disclosed what he thought. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
I just reread the Hutchinson report. He says that after noticing Mary with Astrakhan Man he stood over against the lamp of the Queen's Head Public House. He then waited for Mary and Astrakhan to pass him. He then stooped down so he could peer at Astrakhan's face.
The result of all this was the unbelievably detailed description that has bothered us.
Most witnesses must try to recall what they saw from what I will label as "casual memory". When the incident started they did not know that something of significance was going to happen so they didn't pay a lot of attention, they store random impressions but little that is definative. When the incident becomes frightening and things start to happen fast they are too shocked and agitated to take much in. This is why eyewitness identifications are so unreliable.
GH did four things that suggest to me that he was much more focussed than a typical witness.
1)He positioned himself against the lamp where the light would be good.
2) He waited for Mary and Astrakhan to pass to gain the advantage of proximity.
3) He stooped down to get a good look at Astrakhan.
4) He said afterward he could identify the man with certitude.
It almost sounds as though GH was deliberately trying to take in and memorize the details of Astrakhan's appearance. If this was the case then at least the detailed nature of his description becomes more understandable. He didn't just happen to be standing next to a light where they would have to pass close to him. He did that deliberately. He also followed them.
If I decide that I am going to memorize everything about how a person looks and I make a concerted effort to do so, my memory will be much more detailed and accurate than someone who is using casual memory.
The next and very obvious question is why would George decide to do this? I don't usually memorize the clothing and appearance of people I casually observe on the street. The answer is that I don't know.
Maybe GH was up to something that he wasn't particularly anxious to have the police know about (although I have no idea what it would be). That would explain his delay in coming forward. Maybe there was some kind of petty crime that involved memorizing the victims appearance and tailing them.
When giving his information George would tend to gloss over his motives for doing all this, and Abberline, while perfectly well aware of what George was up to would choose to ignore it. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Diana,
Where can I find Abberline's report on GH? Thanks.
c.d. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5425
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
CD, Sourcebook has it. You can also play though it :
http://casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.lewis.html#ani
Robert |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 114
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
If Hutchinson was so punctilious an observer as to record the tiniest detail, why did he then express doubt about the subsequent sighting in Petticoat Lane? We go from "I could swear to the man anywhere" to the opposite extreme of "I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."
And why - oh why - did he not alert the police after that alleged second sighting?
What a topsy-turvy world George Hutchinson inhabited. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
I found the report at: http://casebook.org/images/hutchinson.pdf I can only venture that if Hutch was up to no good himself, it would take the persuasion of his friends to get him to go and share what he knew.
I am an Agatha Christie fan. In some of her earlier novels she has some of her characters, especially those of the lower classes declare that they want nothing to do with the police. The individuals involved are perfectly innocent but this aversion seems to exist. Christie's career started in the early 20th century. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
If Hutchinson was referring to the Sunday BEFORE Mary Kelly was murdered, (which is what most people believe), Hutchinson would have had no reason to alert the police.
If Hutchinson was referring to the Sunday AFTER Mary Kelly was murdered, he said "I was not certain", to give newspaper readers an excuse as to why he didn't act.
I think it suggests that he knew who the well-dressed man was and knew that he was in 'fancy-dress', as the 'London clothes exchange' was in Petticoat Lane. And so where 'booty scouts', men who informed theives of where the 'booty' was.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1997
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
G'day,
Below is a paragraph from 'The Wild Tribes of London' written by Watts Phillips in 1855, in a chapter that describes Petticoat Lane and the London Clothes exchange: 'The various public-houses in Petticoat-lane, Harrow-alley, and elsewhere, are generally crammed to excess. Through the open doorways we look into the back rooms, where some dozen men are always smoking,-their faces lost in the clouds of smoke which emanate from their lips. These men are known to the initiated as Petticoat-lane fencers, or receivers of stolen goods. Patiently they sit in these filthy rooms, waiting news from their scouts, who they throw out as antennae to "feel the way;" or for the appearance of the thief's confederate, who "gives the office," and tells where the booty may be found.' I found it on the Website: 'Dictionary of Victorian London'.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 119
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Hutchinson was certainly referring to the Sunday AFTER Mary Kelly was murdered. I wholly reject "I was not certain" as a credible excuse for inaction after sighting Astrakhan Man for the second time. He should have alerted the police in spite of his uncertainty.
I don't believe this pantomime villain ever existed. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
Hutchinson's words: "I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on SUNDAY morning." appeared in the 'Times', WEDNESDAY November 14, 'Pall Mall Gazette' WEDNESDAY November 14, and 'ST. James Gazette' WEDNESDAY November 14, at least.
Mary Kelly's dead body was discovered on FRIDAY November 9. I believe Hutchinson was referring to the SUNDAY AFTER Kelly was murdered too.
I respect your opinion that the description of the 'pantomine villain' was total fiction, but please just consider for a moment that Hutchinson was telling the truth about the man and the way he was dressed, (as Inspector Abberline did). But Hutchinson knew more than he told Abberline. He may not have mentioned this Petticoat Lane sighting to Abberline, because I'm sure the "street-wise" Abberline would have asked what Hutchinson was doing there, and considered the strong possibility that the well-dressed man was in disguize, and 'cashing-in' on his attire.
'I don't believe this pantomime villain ever existed.'
Tell me, if you believe Hutchinson was making the whole thing up, why do you suppose he took such a gigantic risk of telling the police such a huge fib, when he may only have feared a vague sighting of himself?
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 120
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"He may not have mentioned this Petticoat Lane sighting to Abberline, because I'm sure the "street-wise" Abberline would have asked what Hutchinson was doing there"
By including the Petticoat Lane detail in his press statement, Abberline was bound to learn of it at some point, and Hutchinson would have appreciated this.
if you believe Hutchinson was making the whole thing up, why do you suppose he took such a gigantic risk of telling the police such a huge fib, when he may only have feared a vague sighting of himself?
I'm sure we explored this topic in some considerable detail over on the "Was Mary Kelly Killed In her Sleep" thread. For all Hutchinson knew, Sarah Lewis' 2:30am sighting of him may not have been as "vague" as she intimated at the inquest. We know that Lawende was specifically requested to downplay his suspect description, so who is to say that Lewis did not receive similar treatment?
What if Lewis got a good look at Hutchinson that night? What if she recognised him on a subsequent occasion and reported it to the police? What if previous witnesses were reintroduced as a consequence?
I hope you understand now that, if Hutchinson had rested on his laurels, he would have taken a far greater risk.
Regards,
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
' For all Hutchinson knew, Sarah Lewis' 2:30am sighting of him may not have been as "vague" as she intimated at the inquest. We know that Lawende was specifically requested to downplay his suspect description, so who is to say that Lewis did not receive similar treatment?'
At Catherine Eddowes's Inquest Mr. Crawford broke the testimony and said: "I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man. You have given a description of the man to the police?" - "Yes." It was screamingly obvious to all that Lawende had given police a detailed description that the police wished to keep to thmselves.
Nothing like this occured at Mary Kelly's Inquest after Sarah Lewis spoke. Lewis testified that she spotted a man opposite the lodging house wearing a wide-awake, as she was entering it to visit Mrs. Keyler. She would have had no reason to take a second look at the man, so the police would have had to be satisfied with the vague description she gave.
The Coroner's next question immediately after she mentioned this glance was about what woke her up at 3:30a.m.
Are you suggesting that George Hutchinson was in the public gallery thinking: "Phew! That was close! I better go Bishopsgate Police Station and invent a wild story, so that police won't even think of suspecting me!"
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 270
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 4:22 am: |
|
Diana,
How was Hutchinson to know the couple would pass on the same side of the street.
Hutchinson was making himself conspicuous,and the man,if he had intentions on Kelly's life and wanted to avoid eye contact,had only to steer Kelly to the other side of the street where he would be beyond Hutchinson's direct scrutiny.
Hutchinson had to fabricate a story which entailed a good description,so he had to have the person in close proximity,and how else but in the manner described. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
