|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 11:44 am: | 
|
Hi Bob, Frank, Ben, All,
There are convicted murderers who have been known to seek publicity. But I can't see it in Hutch's case. It seems that the attention he received was fairly short-lived, and it died a death along with Jack's crimes.
So what happened? Why did Hutch, as far as we know, give up craving public attention as quickly as he had taken it up, and never again do anything to court it?
Considering the content of his statement, does Hutch come across as a man who was clever enough to appreciate the close shave he had, and disciplined enough to wean himself off the habit of murder and mutilation or other publicity-seeking activities, before he got buckled?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 08, 2006) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 807
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"So what happened? Why did Hutch, as far as we know, give up craving public attention as quickly as he had taken it up, and never again do anything to court it?"
"It seems that the attention he received was fairly short-lived, and it died a death along with Jack's crimes."
You seem to answer your own question here, Caz.  Maybe George stopped his publicity seeking activities for the same reason Jack the Ripper stopped killing after Mary Kelly - if that is actually the case.
But more seriously, I didn't say George actually was a publicity seeker (I don't believe he was one), I said that shortly after his coming forward he may have been seen as a publicity seeker.
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: 306
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:58 am: |
|
Rodney,
I believe Macnaghten,in naming Druit,would have to have dismissed Hutchinson's story,as Druit surely could not be confused with a Jewish person.
Well we amatuers do not hazard a guess as to his motive.We say it was to throw suspicion elsewhere,a known ploy of many criminals.
If you accept that Kelly did meet a male as Hutchinson says,how do you feel it should affect anyone's reasoning of who was the killer.Which Jewish suspect is most likely,and why the discrepencies among senior officers and latterday researchers as to who that person was.
Where is any information that allows for any other person to have entered Kelly's room that night.
Disagree with me with pleasure,but how about some theory yourself. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 809
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Rodney,
Not that I can really believe GH to have been MJK’s killer, but might I be so bold as to ask you why you think that killing and mutilating Kelly could not have been a possible motive. Because ‘barging in’ and just saying that you’d bet all money in the bank that Hutchinson was not a murderer isn’t the best way to try to convince anybody, nor is the best way to just start a meaningful discussion about it. And just saying that NOBODY back then ever named him is a rather weak point as well. Because who’s to say that the actual Jack the Ripper was ever named in any of the official documents in the first place?
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)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
"But more seriously, I didn't say George actually was a publicity seeker (I don't believe he was one), I said that shortly after his coming forward he may have been seen as a publicity seeker."
I have to disagree with you on this point, Frank, and for a specific reason: GH's statement to the press was far more detailed than the one he gave to the police. Just compare the two, and tell me Packer doesn't come to mind.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
Hello Harry & Frank
Just WHAT constitutes the meaning of "of Jewish appearance" ?? I'm not arguing with you my friends, this is a genuine question. In my experience of asking this question, it seems that different people have their own individual views on how they judge this, and differ quite considerably.
Is it the nose ?? The colouring, etc. ?? Just for experiment, I once showed a picture of the best known portrait of Druitt to half a dozen individuals, and three of them actually saw him as Jewish-looking, and cited the nose as the main reason. I'm not saying that I agree with that, only that one man's vision can differ widely to the next man's.
It was perhaps hasty for Rodney to say, that he'd bet all the money in the Bank of England against Hutchinson being the Ripper. But I personally CAN'T accept it for a single moment either.
Harry, the trend today is to accuse everyone in sight, who had ANY contact with the Ripper case. Michael Kidney, Joseph Barnett, and now Hutchinson, have all been accused without the remotest scrap of evidence.
PERSONALLY I believe, as in the Yorkshire Ripper case, that Jack the Ripper was just a random, mutilating killer who did not know, and was not known to, ANY of his victims. But that view is too simple for some people on these boards, who wish to dream up conspiracies about witnesses and boyfriends, where none exist.
It is of course possible, that the killer may have been one of the suspects who have been named by the highest ranking officials who had connection with the case.
Best wishes
DAVID C. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4330
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Hi David!
Well, I don't think Michael Kidney has ever been accused of being the Ripper in any modern theory, though (only possibly Stride's killer), unless I am mistaken.
But wait... aaah... hmmm... I see a new book coming on..... 
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 172
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Michael Kidney, Joseph Barnett, and now Hutchinson, have all been accused without the remotest scrap of evidence
How are you defining "evidence", David? Just curious.
Cheers,
Ben |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Sorry my friend. I should have been more specific, and said accused of one or other, or all of these murders. As you rightly say, Kidney has only been linked to Stride's murder, at least up to now. Poor old Barnett and Hutch haven't fared so well in some quarters here. They've been fitted with the tag of "Jack".
Ben.
Sorry to turn this around on you, but how do YOU define evidence ?? And I mean evidence that is enough to have brought any of these men into a court of law, because that's the only evidence that I understand. Personal theories and suspicions, however appealing they may look, are not tangible evidence.
I'm not saying that Hutch & Barnett are no-hopers, but I personally haven't seen anything yet that suggests that either man was a killer, and even more to the point, Jack the Ripper.
Best wishes guys.
DAVID C. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 310
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:26 am: |
|
David,
Even law enforcement officers will disagree about what is evidence.Except for scientific methods of determining fact,one is left with experience and common sense in how they define most things.
As Hutchinson says he had a facial view of a male person,we might reasonably deduce it was the features that led him to say Jewish.Had he said Oriental,Negroid or Anglo Saxon would we have questioned his description.As Jews made up quite a large proportion of the population of Whitechapel,Hutchinson must surely have had a good idea that what he was describing as Jewish,would be understood by those he made the remark to,as meaning a specific national identity.
Somebody killed those victims.Hutchinson was one person who came forward and involved himself.Many posters,like myself,find his explanation of being at Crossingham's questionable.There is no independent verification that Kelly left her room that night after midnight.She had had food and drink,and had a roof over her head.She had company.
Motive,means,opportunity.The first will probably never be known,the second arguable,but on the third count Hutchinson has a head start over other suspects. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 311
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:40 am: |
|
David,
Even law enforcement officers will disagree about what is evidence.Except for scientific methods of determining fact,one is left with experience and common sense in how they define most things.
As Hutchinson says he had a facial view of a male person,we might reasonably deduce it was the features that led him to say Jewish.Had he said Oriental,Negroid or Anglo Saxon would we have questioned his description.As Jews made up quite a large proportion of the population of Whitechapel,Hutchinson must surely have had a good idea that what he was describing as Jewish,would be understood by those he made the remark to,as meaning a specific national identity.
Somebody killed those victims.Hutchinson was one person who came forward and involved himself.Many posters,like myself,find his explanation of being at Crossingham's questionable.There is no independent verification that Kelly left her room that night after midnight.She had had food and drink,and had a roof over her head.She had company.
Motive,means,opportunity.The first will probably never be known,the second arguable,but on the third count Hutchinson has a head start over other suspects. |
|
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