| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:18 am: | 
|
An interesting angle that I hadn't considered there, Harry!
Leanne - You still appear to be confounding my personal interpretation of Lewis' testimony with that of Hutchinson.
It was screamingly obvious to all that Lawende had given police a detailed description that the police wished to keep to themselves.
Nothing like this occured at Mary Kelly's Inquest after Sarah Lewis spoke.
Yes, but once again, Hutchinson was oblivious to this. Mindful of the tactic employed by the police which involved the downplaying of witness decriptions, pre-emtptive action was his only option. The fact that the topic wasn't openly discussed at the Kelly inquest would not have afforded him any solace.
My personal take on the issue is that Lewis saw no more than she told, but Hutchinson did not know that |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 12:08 am: |
|
Could Hutch have been one of those scouts for the fences in Petticoat Lane? He observes this toff slumming and follows him so he can report his whereabouts to someone who will rob him?
Another possibility is that Mary had not spent her whole life as a prostitute in Whitechapel. We have some intimations that at one time she worked in the West End before coming down in the world. She might have had regular customers from that time. Possibly one of them found out where she was? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 2:31 am: |
|
G'day Diana,
'Could Hutch have been one of those scouts for the fences in Petticoat Lane?'
Well that's what I thought, and Abberline, (who was familiar with the East End), would have had an idea that these kind of people existed. But he doesn't appear to have even investigated the possibility.
Why didn't he arrest Hutchinson? Well the arrest of a 'Petticoat Lane Fencer' or 'booty scout' would have been a different case, and Abberline was focussed on the Ripper one. He believed Hutchinson wasn't lying and perhaps thought that he could be a valuable assett, (informer). He wasn't to know that a Ripper-style murder wouldn't occur again.
LEANNE |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hutch dances all around the issue in his statement. He couldn't come out and say he was looking for people to rob. But at the same time he has to let Abberline know that was what he was doing without actually saying it, because if not he's open to the charge of being JTR.
So he goes on and on about his efforts to get a good look at Astrakhan, and his noting of all of AM's expensive accessories and then he makes a point of mentioning Petticoat Lane.
Abberline, who knew Whitechapel quite well would have known just what GH was doing but would have pretended he didn't have the slightest suspicion.
It would explain the detailed description, the toff, and Abberline's acceptance of the story. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
G'day Diana,
We are thinking 100% together on this point! If you were Hutchinson would you rather face prosecution as a 'fencer', a 'scout' or a murderer?
This would explain why Hutchinson hesitated to come forward until he was persuaded by his friends. If his friends didn't know the true reason why he waited there, would they persuade him to come forward?
He may have heard Sarah Lewis's testimony first to make sure that her sighting didn't cause too much alarm, then thought: "Well, it's better to come forward and risk being prosecuted for the lesser crime."
LEANNE |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
I think that it is safe to assume that anyone up and about in the wee hours in a neighborhood like that was up to no good. It's just a question of how bad their intentions were. (Commuting back and forth to actual employment excepted, of course.)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 123
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne, Diana and all,
I trust you all had an enjoyable Christmas.
Two obvious flaws with the Hutchinson-as-robber theory have occured to me:
Well the arrest of a 'Petticoat Lane Fencer' or 'booty scout' would have been a different case, and Abberline was focussed on the Ripper one.
If Abberline harboured any suspicions that Hutchinson was a thief, the latter's credibility as a whole would come under question. And no, I don't suppose for a moment that Abberline would adpot the mentality: "Yes, you might have been involved in criminal activity, but I have bigger fish to fry right now, so I'll let you off".
Secondly; if Petticoat Lane was indeed a mecca for "boot scouts", Hutchinson was clumsy in the extreme to mention it.
Best wishes.
Ben |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Abberline couldn't afford to alienate Hutch at this point, especially if his sighting was accurate. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2007
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
G'day Ben, Diana and all,
'If Abberline harboured any suspicions that Hutchinson was a thief, the latter's credibility as a whole would come under question.'
If Abberline had any suspicions that Hutchinson was a 'scout', he'd trust his detailed description of the man's clothes and Jewellery!
'if Petticoat Lane was indeed a mecca for "boot scouts", Hutchinson was clumsy in the extreme to mention' He would have been clumsier not to come forward and leave police with suspicion that he may have been the murderer, and had sinister reasons for hanging around there. He didn't have to mention the fact that he was a theif or a theif's scout. Abberline should have guessed.
LEANNE |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 155
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
I just finished reading GH's written statement. The grammar and context certainly seem to indicate that he was literate with some degree of education and intelligence (not to mention the round school boy hand). Since he had three days to prepare his story, I have always wondered why he came up with such a dubious story when he could have simply omitted a few details and made it much more believable if it was his intention to tell a story that was untrue. Also, if his story of being prompted to come forward by friends is true, I would expect that he would have related his description of the man he saw to them. Would their reaction have been the same as ours, i.e., too good to be true? If they made similar comments to him, wouldn't he have then realized that his story was not believable and that he needed to change it? Maybe he thought he was being slick but surely it must have occurred to him that if his story was at all suspect that he could end up with his neck in a noose. Maybe he was simply telling the truth.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
G'day C.D.,
'I just finished reading GH's written statement.'
If it was the hand-written statement, did Hutchinson himself write it or did Sergant Badham or Inspector Ellisdon write it then Hutchinson simply signed it?
If he had to repeat his story over and over again to his friends and fellow lodgers, it would explain how he was able to remember each fine detail. If he had no suspicion that the man was a murderer, he wouldn't have thought to write each detail down.
C.D. I believe he was telling the truth about what he saw too, and everything that people believe Abberline should have asked, was asked and just not recorded.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
G'day,
If Hutchinson had have been arrested by Abberline for being a theif or having other illegal reasons for loitering, it would have been bad publicity and caused others to fear 'comming forward' with what could have been important information.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 124
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
He didn't have to mention the fact that he was a theif or a theif's scout. Abberline should have guessed.
It would still have been an imprudent move indeed for a "Petticoat Lane Scout" to allude to the presence of a fastidiously attired man in Petticoat Lane, wouldn't it?
The scout theory neglects to account for Hutchinson's apparent haziness of memory upon sighting the suspect a second time, despite his earlier assertion that "I could swear to the man ANYWHERE".
Even if he harboured the slightest suspicion on that second occasion, why did he not alert a policeman? How callous.
Petticoat Lane was inhabited and frequented by the Jewish poulation of the East End. My suspicion here, is that both the Petticoat Lane detail and the "He was of Jewish appearence" extract from his statemnt were designed to deflect suspicion away from himself and in the direction of the Jewish community.
C.D. - Hutchinson did not write the witness statement. He only signed it.
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
'Even if he harboured the slightest suspicion on that second occasion, why did he not alert a policeman? How callous.'
Mary Kelly's body was found on a Thursday morning. Hutchinson was either referring to the Sunday BEFORE the murder or the Sunday AFTER.
If Hutchinson was referring to the Sunday BEFORE, (as most people concluded when we discussed the sighting last), he would have had no reason to alert a policeman.
I believe he was reffering to the Sunday AFTER, (the day before he went to Police), because of his words: 'I was not certain', after he told the reporter of his sighting. That sounded like he was giving the public an excuse for not fetching a policeman.
Perhaps the second time he saw the man in the clothes exchange he was no longer dressed in the expensive-looking atire, but had sold it.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Mary Kelly was found on the Friday morning the 9th November 88, just to correct you on your days, it appears evident that Gh saw the possible candidate on sunday the 11th, after which he approached a police officer but obviously he conversed with a constable that appeared non intrested in this young mans ramblings.
Rich. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
G'day Rich,
Sorry for that little 'slip'.
Are you suggesting that he did approach a police officer about the sighting? Perhaps the police officer didn't respond because of Hutchinson's 'shady' character?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi leanne,
I can only assume that if Gh approached a policeman on the 11th he was not taken seriously, and the policeman was so used to contact in this manner that he rejected any connections.
Which just goes to show how ignorant this officer was.
And what a novice he must have felt after he became aware of the same man reporting the incident on the monday and giving explanations to Abberline himself.
Rich. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
If I am correct he only mentioned Petticoat Lane to clue Abberline in to what he was doing.
As to why he didnt come forward after the Petticoat Lane sighting, you are imposing your own ethical system on someone who we suspect of being a shady character at best.
In the 1950s a lady named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in full view of a whole crowd of people. Not one even made a move to call police. Nobody wanted to get involved.
The next step is to find out how this scout, thief, fence system worked. I'm only speculating but I would assume that once George satisfied himself that Astrakhan was going to spend the night with Mary (he would wait 45 minutes to see if Astrakhan was going to leave) then he would report to the fence that a well dressed gentleman with a watch, etc. etc. was in a room in Miller's Court. Then what? A thief would be sent out? What would the thief do, wait outside Mary's door for Astrakhan? Break in? (Incidentally this would solve the question of the locked door. Who better to defeat a lock than a professional thief?)
The next question would be was JTR astrakhan, George, or the thief? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
G'day Diana,
'If I am correct he only mentioned Petticoat Lane to clue Abberline in to what he was doing.'
How can we be sure that he mentioned Petticoat Lane to Abberline? It was only in the press report. He probably did because he was interrigated shortly after the sighting, but if so how come Abberline didn't include this detail in his official report?
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 125
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
"As to why he didnt come forward after the Petticoat Lane sighting, you are imposing your own ethical system on someone who we suspect of being a shady character at best."
You cannot have it both ways.
You suggest, initially, that Hutchinson was "ethical" enough to 'fess up to criminal activities in the service of a greater ideal; that of helping his old enemies the police with a murder investigation, but NOW you're intimating that he was callous enough to allow the murderer's trail to go cold by failing to alert the police upon sighting the suspect in Petticoat Lane (and yet he was stupid enough to mention it).
It's one or the other, I'm afraid!
If I am correct he only mentioned Petticoat Lane to clue Abberline in to what he was doing.
But why, if he was indeed a "scout", did he need to "clue Abberline in to what he was doing"? He didn't need to mention Petticoat Lane AT ALL.
Again, why did he express so much doubt about his alleged his second sighting?
Ben |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 157
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
I think we are getting into an "if A, then B" type of thing here with Hutchinson. No, I don't think he was telling the whole truth and it is certainly possible that his intentions and actions were criminal in nature. I think he was just somebody who was scared to death that he would be considered a serious Ripper suspect because he was seen outside of Mary's room shortly before she was killed and he admitted to knowing her. Fear can be a great motivator, and I think that is why he came forward. But it is not an "if A, then B" type of argument. Even if we can prove that he was something less than Mother Theresa, it does not necessarily make him the Ripper.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
G'day,
'Again, why did he express so much doubt about his alleged his second sighting?'
1) Hutchinson waited outside Kelly's room early on the morning of Friday the 9th of November.
2) He fancied he saw his well-dressed suspect at Petticoat Lane on Sunday the 11th of November and may have told a policeman, who didn't react. The policeman was probably used to people's stories.
3) Hutchinson may have been in the public gallery at Kelly's inquest, and Sarah Lewis's sighting of him may have prompted him to get involved. He went to Bishopsgate Police station on Monday the 12th, after Kelly's inquest. AFTER the first and AFTER the second sighting.
How do we know that he was so doubtful after the Sunday sighting? The policeman he informed may have 'played-down' his story and made him question the sighting. It may not have been Hutchinson but the policeman who doubted. Then his friends and fellow lodgers urged him to come forward.
It sounds to me like he was just giving an excuse to the newspaper reading public when he said he was doubtful.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 129
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"(he) may have told a policeman, who didn't react."
Didn't react??
He neglected to report a potential JTR sighting to his superiors, despite his full knowledge of the ongoing manhunt. What an appaling, negligent monster this policeman must have been. Why didn't Hutchinson infrom the press that he had approached a policemen after the Petticoat Lane sighting?
Leanne - I admire your indefatigable determination to assert your belief that GH was telling the truth, but here you are clutching at straws. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
I think that if Leanne and I are correct GH followed Mary and Astrakhan to her lodgings, hung around long enough to assure himself that AM was not going anywhere soon, and then ran off to the fences in Petticoat Lane to report that there was a well dressed gentleman in a room in Miller's Court. Petticoat Lane was also known as Middlesex Street and a glance at a map shows it was very close by.
I suspect that while George was gone AM left Mary, who was too sleepy at this point to change out of the chemise she had put on for AM. The fences sent out a thief who, unbeknownst to them, was also JTR. Jack has no trouble getting into the room if he is a professional thief. The locked door becomes a moot issue.
Once inside he discovers two things. AM is gone and cant be robbed. Mary is alone and asleep and he has an opportunity to do something he hasn't been able to do for over a month.
The next day George hears that JTR has struck again, this time the very woman he was tailing the night before. He is in a dither not knowing what to do. People who are faced with a difficult decision (where both alternatives are bad) often act inconsistently as they consider one alternative and then the other.
GH has a pretty good idea that the thief was also JTR, but he doesn't know which thief was used, and in any case does not want Jack coming after him so he decides to focus attention on AM.
Several people would have enough information to suspect what had gone down. The fences might blab to save thier own skin. AM might decide to clear his conscience by describing GH to the police.
George is benefitted by accusing AM before AM accuses him. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 130
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
OR...Hutchinson was the murderer and invented AM to deflect suspicion away from himself.
I'd go with the latter, personally. Far less complicated and far more likely.  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2016
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
G'day,
DIANA: 'Mary is alone and asleep and he has an opportunity to do something he hasn't been able to do for over a month.' How did he get into her room? Did he squeeze through the hole in the window, or did he trust that Mary would just let in any customer that came knocking on the door? Why didn't he just perform the same mutilations he performed previously, then get out? Why did he go so far overboard? How did he know that no one was going to come knocking on the door, or peeping through the window? why did he take her heart and not her uterus or kidney?
BEN: 'OR...Hutchinson was the murderer and invented AM to deflect suspicion away from himself.' All the police may have had at that stage was a description of his headgear. Why would he go to Bishopgate Police Station and give them an unbeleivable story, plus every opportunity to secure a full description of himself?
LEANNE |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 158
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"...plus every opportunity to secure a full description of himself."
That is a very good point, Leanne. If he had any intentions of committing further killings it would have been most unwise.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
G'day C.D.,
If he had any intentions of hiding a full 100%description of the person who committed the previous killings, he would have been most unwise!
LEANNE |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
"The fences sent out a thief who, unbeknownst to them, was also JTR. Jack has no trouble getting into the room if he is a professional thief."
Hoo boy...this is one of the more 'imaginative' theories I've seen.
Quick question: in this scenario, don't you think the fences would have been wondering where the thief got off to ? Where's the goods ? Have they been double crossed ?
I'd argue that the thief would have had to give a thorough account of himself to his 'employers'...who would have turned him in for a reward so fast his head would have spun...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
OR...Hutchinson was the murderer and invented AM to deflect suspicion away from himself.
If Hutch was JTR then he was a psychopath, not a psychotic. He seemed to be sane. Why would he come forward and identify himself as the man outside Mary's door? Why not head for the hills?
How did he get into her room? How do professional burglars get in anywhere? I am not an expert on this, but aren't there special tools?
Why didn't he just perform the same mutilations he performed previously, then get out? Greater opportunity in a room.
How did he know that no one was going to come knocking on the door, or peeping through the window? why did he take her heart and not her uterus or kidney? This question is valid no matter who Jack was. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"All the police may have had at that stage was a description of his headgear."
Hutchinson did not know this - a point I have sought to reinforice ad nauseam. What if they downplayed Lewis' description as they had done with Lawende at the Eddowes inquest?
Diane wrote: Why would he come forward and identify himself as the man outside Mary's door? Why not head for the hills?
Because he thought he could get away with it perhaps? Indeed he did! His fleeing would only have attracted suspicion in time. No point in prolonging the inevitable.
How did he get into her room? By extending an arm through the broken window pane and undoing the latch OR by knocking on the door just before 4.00am.
I'd go with the former, on balence.
(Message edited by BenH on December 29, 2005) |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 159
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
How did GH know before he came forward that he would be able to get away with it. I can just see him on the gallows saying "what the hell was I thinking when I came forward? Oy!, did I screw up."
I also don't see how fleeing would cast suspicion upon him when nobody knew who he was or where he lived. I think his capture would have been far from inevitable.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 12:43 am: |
|
G'day,
DIANA: 'Why didn't he just perform the same mutilations he performed previously, then get out? Greater opportunity in a room.' Not necessarily! Previously Jack had easier escape routes, and he could also see/hear if anyone was approaching.
BEN: 'What if they downplayed Lewis' description as they had done with Lawende at the Eddowes inquest?' But they didn't!!!! Stop comparing the two inquests! At Kate's inquest Henry Crawford, the City of London solicitor acting for the police, stepped in before Lawende could describe his suspect and stopped him from doing so.
Giving her statement to police on the 9th, Lewis mentioned the man she saw and said: "I cannot describe him." At Kelly's Inquest she described the man as short and mentioned his hat. Mr. Crawford wasn't even there.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 281
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Leanne,
Hutchinson didn't go to Bishopsgate poice station,he went to Commercial street police station.
Some people are very poor at descriptions,this would not mean Lewis would not be able to recognise the man if confronted by him in the future. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 135
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
How did GH know before he came forward that he would be able to get away with it.
He didn't "know" CD. He took risks, just as the ripper did. What if Sarah Lewis knew Hutchinson?
Leanne: "BEN: 'What if they downplayed Lewis' description as they had done with Lawende at the Eddowes inquest?' But they didn't!!!! Stop comparing the two inquests!"
Unbelieveable. Words fail me. You make the astonishing ex cathedra pronouncement that Lewis's description was not dumbed down, whilst failing to embrace the possibility that it was pre-arranged that the description be downplayed in order to quell any fears the ripper may have of iminent capture.
Please, for the love of all mankind, consider it from Hutchinson's point of view. He was oblivious to any tactics which the police might have employed. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
So am I right in saying that you believe that GH took a huge gamble and went to the police giving them the opportunity to gain a 100% description of the man seen by Sarah Lewis, all because he thought that Lewis may have already given the them a better description?.....UNBELIEVABLE!
In Sarah Lewis' statement that she made to police on the 9th of November, she told of her brief glance at a man outside the court as she was going in, between 2 and 3a.m: "I cannot describe him.".
At Kelly's inquest she described the man in greater detail: "He was not tall - but stout - had a wideawake black hat - I did not notice his clothes." Are you convinced that the police asked her to give a lesser description?.....WORDS FAIL ME!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2023
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
With Lawende's description of the man seen with Catherine Eddowes it was the other way around.
On September 30, he gave police the description: 'age 30 ht 5ft. 7 or 8in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with a peak of same colour, reddish hankerchief tied in a knot round neck, appearance of a sailor.'
At Kates inquest, Mr Crawford cut in before he could even begin to describe the man.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 141
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
At Kates inquest, Mr Crawford cut in before he could even begin to describe the man.
What a prudent, cautious man Mr. Crawford proved himself to be on this occasion!
Tiny bit disappointed that you overlooked my previous point: I mentioned "the possibility that it was pre-arranged that the description be downplayed in order to quell any fears the ripper may have of iminent capture." In other words, they may have been more cautious at the Kelly inquest than they were at Eddowes', mindful that the latter inquest had so nearly resulted in a full descrpition being divulged.
Don't you find it slightly strange that no questions were posed akin to: Would you recognise the man again? What sort of age was he? The fact that so such questions were posed did not mean that she was incapable of providing answers to them, and thsi potentiality would have perterbed the ripper. This bizarre absence of such questions could so easily have been premeditated ploy.
Best Regards,
Ben |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Ben
I disagree.The Lewis description seems to be vague. I cannot believe Hutchinson came forward as a result of Lewis. She had no reason to take notice of Hutchinsons identity that night.
The risk of a brief sighting by Lewis is far less than the risk of putting himself as the last eyewitness to Kelly's whereabouts. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:09 am: |
|
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"
Harry
This need not be the case. The authorities may not have thought Mr Astrakhan as Kelly's killer due to the time of her death(but of course he was a suspect). It does not follow that the police thought Hutch lied.
I agree that it is telling that no police officials mention Hutchinson in there memiors, or in later police files. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
There are at least two aspects the police could have investigated regarding Hutchinson's general truthfulness in his statement.
One was the Romford story, the other was his discussion with fellow lodgers at the weekend (Sunday i think) about his sighting of Kelly.
I think we have to assume at least one of these were investigated at some stage. Even if it is not now recorded in the police files. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Monty
I agree, Stewart's article is excellent.
There's one point about i'd like to make on the justifiable criticism of Hutchinson's recorded witness statement.
I wonder how much we overlook the cumbersome and time consuming nature of paperwork, especially in those days. Before the invention of photocopiers and word processors i think recorded statements/ copies would be reduced to only the most bare boned important details. Much else would (we hope) have been written down unofficially and stored in a notebook somewhere. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
Hello Leanne.
I agree absolutely with you.
I believe that it was as simple as that. Far too many people are now reading "conspiracy" into the character of every witness in the Ripper case. Far from clarifying this mystery, they are just making things ever more complicated. That, as Paul Begg has said, is an incurable trait in todays so-called "Ripperologists".
Regards.
ROD |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Ben
The statement about Petticoat Lane i would take with a pinch of salt. It may have been made up, or embellished by a reporter. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 143
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
We learn from Sarah Lewis that the man in the wideawake hat was "looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.
"Looking" is the operative verb here. It is only possible to discern the direction to which another person is looking by noticing his eyes, and of necessity, his face. If a man's face is shrouded in darkness, such things are impossible to detect.
Thus, it is only logical to infer that Lewis must have seen Hutchinson's face.
He might, initially, have selected a wideawake believing that the wide brim would afford him the luxury of facial concealment, but it wasn't to be. Unfortunately for Hutchinson, his was not the era of the hoodie or the balaclava.
If Bluewater Shopping Centre had existed in 1888, you can be rest assured that Wideawake hats would have been banned. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 144
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Rodney Peters is at it again.
He rudely castigates Casebook contributors for alluding to the inconsistoncies in GH's testimony, without contributing anything of worth to the ongoing debate.
Stop the inflammatory comments and argue properly. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
I'm not quite sure how this fits in or even if it does. Petticoat Lane is very close to Miller's Court. Fences in PL work with thieves to steal and sell clothing and personal items. It is possible that GH was a scout for these fences. Mary had a bunch of clothes left with her the night she died. They were burned in the fireplace. I'm not sure I can even create a coherent theory out of all this. Just seems like a bunch of coincidences. Gh was waiting for AM to leave so the thieves could bust in and get the clothes? Still doesnt explain why they got burned. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
"the Romford story"
What was Romford about in those days ? Why would someone go there ? Hop picking ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
Where was Mr Crawford sitting at Kelly's inquest?
'Don't you find it slightly strange that no questions were posed akin to: Would you recognise the man again?' No not at all! Sarah Lewis had already answered any possible questions anyway with: "I cannot describe him."
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!
JASON: 'The statement about Petticoat Lane i would take with a pinch of salt. It may have been made up, or embellished by a reporter.' Yes, let's all dismiss statements that don't fit in with our theories! Even if they were in quotation marks!
LEANNE |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 318
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 1:50 am: |
|
What's all this about Petticoat Lane? It wasn't the greatest of TV shows, but it certainly wasn't the worst. I can still remember the lyrics to the theme song "Here's Uncle Joe, He's moving mighty slow, at the Junction... Petticoat Junction. Oops that was Petticoat Lane you were talking about. Never mind.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
