|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:58 pm: |       |
Perhaps I am just in a rut concerning Hutchinson but I am troubled by his testimony. He stated that when he met up with Kelly, she called him by name and asked for sixpence. I am having trouble finding any proof beyond his testimony that Hutchinson and Kelly knew each other. Is there evidence that I'm just missing? Also, the man he describes is so unlike all other witness reports, sometimes I wonder if he was in the vicinity at all.
And yet, if he was there, why was he so far from home at that time of night with so little money? And ofcourse the big question is why does he watch over Kelly's apartment for so long? 45 minutes is a very long time to stand and watch an apartment. It would have been nice to have his whereabouts verified after leaving Kelly's apartment.
It seems to me that Hutchinson falls under one of two categories:
1. His testimony was fabricated and he is somehow looking to get reward money (not very nice).
2. He knew much more about Kelly's murder than he let on and may have been involved (also not very nice).
Any thoughts?
Rod |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi Rod,
Hutchinson has always been branded a liar, by the vast majority of people, on the casebook.
I personally believe his statement.
Reasons why.
He said he had known Kelly for some time , and was able to give her money on occassions, they obviously knew each other quite well, therefore as the man he saw was dressed suspiciously, he was concerned enough to stay close by, for he was concerned.
She asked him for sixpence, an exact sum,as her rent was four shillings and sixpence weekly, it could imply that she had already amassed the sum of four shillings that evening, and on seeing hutchinson, thought if he could give her sixpence, she would have no need to seek further trade.
I Believe Kelly promised Mccarthy, a weeks rent by the morning of the 9th, and that her previous client had paid her four shillings, [quite a sum for business].
Remember the astracan man stuck out a arm as kelly approached him, as if to indicate' excuse me' He was dressed in morning attire, and in my mind he was attending the lord Mayors ceremony the following morning. could he simply have asked kelly if she knew of some private accomodation, where he could spend the next few hours until dawn?.
Kelly could have indicated ; Now thats a new approach dearie' I have a room,were as the man joined in with kellys laughter, and he said for what I have told you you will be alright, in other words 'I will pay you well' Ok my dear come along you will be comftable was her reply, the couple then walked passed hutchinson, he had his hand on her shoulder in gentlemanly fashion, and kelly was seen to give him a kiss, proberly so grateful for the welcome income.
Hutchinson said Kelly said 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' she obviously was in need of one, and the man obliged by handing her his own.
The actions of this man, do not seem at all suspicious to me, if he was on his way to the lord mayors show mayby in some official capacity, and was simply wishing to spend a few hours in the dry,and off the streets, To suggest that he was Jack dressed in his sunday best, does not seem likely, there are two reasons that Hutchinson did not see the man leave after 45 minutes, [a] He was Jack' [b] he was intending to rest up in room 13 until daybreak, and I would say that he was the person heard leaving the court around 5.45-615 am , and the reason no door was heard to shut was simply out of respect for the sleeping Kelly, he left quietly.
You have some of my thoughts on that nights events, just a small snippit from the future book.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 207
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Richard, It was 02:00 on a rainy November night. Its dark, its cold, its wet! Who in their right mind is out at time time of night in a town they don't live in, following someone they don't know, and makes the statement, "My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer..."
George may have seen her that night as he passed; but, beyond that, he is as everyone claims, a liar who was after the reward.
He goes on to say: "The man was about 5ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat, trimmed with Astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin."
Just how close was he to this man? Its dark, the man is wearing a black coat and tie, and yet George is able to tell his age, height, and that he has a horseshoe pin in his tie...
Furthermore, George says: "He wore a pair of dark "spats" with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it."
Cant you say Mugger's dream come true? If someone was dressed like George describes and had a watch like that on their belt in the streets of Whitechapel, he is the one who would be dead, not Mary. He would have been mugged in the first alleyway he came to...
Now back to George: "He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner."
May as well come right out and say he looks just like the man Elizabeth Long saw talking to Annie the night she was murdered, and oh by the way, he looks EXACTLY like the description in the paper next to the reward offered!
Sorry, Richard, might consider having a second look at him before the book goes to print...
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
G'day,
SHANNON: This is one part of our book in which one author, (ME), goes down a different path to the other author, (RICHARD). A reader can make up his/her own mind as to who to follow!
RICHARD: HE said that he had known Kelly for some time. HE. He may have been a secret-regular customer of hers all the time she was with Barnett, that's still not a good enough reason why he should wait across the street for three-quarters of an hour!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 6:10 am: | |
G'day,
Hutchinson wasn't the Ripper because why would he come forward to introduce his name to the investigation?
Hang-on, was it ever proved that his name was George Hutchinson?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | |
Richard, I can't imagine why a well-to-do man would wish to rest for a few hours out of the rain, in one of the very worst slums in London.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Leanne is right, we have different opinions on a lot of aspects of this case , but we agree 100 per cent on the culprit. This is what will make this book different, two authors, with different views, with the same perpretrator.
Regarding Hutchinson, we should remember, that he was reluctant to come forward at first , for he is naming himself as one of the last people to see her alive, also admits he is loitering near the crime scene, but i feel all respect to the man, for being honest enough to come forward, in order to try and help the police with their enquirys.
As for the astracan man, rightly said 'Why should a man dressed in that manner, be standing on the corner of thrawl street at 2am in the morning. answer we simply dont know, mayby he was simply unaware of any impending danger to his person, or he could have been extremely concerned,so he approached kelly for assistance to find a safe residence, after all unless he had just left home, which would make no sence, for he would have stayed put until later in the night. he had survived the most dangerous part of the night intact after all.
Mayby a lot of things, but the fact is hutchinson, describes the man as being present at that location at that time, so he did exist...
I just put forward a possible different interpretation to one which everbody has always imagined.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
Dear Everyone,
I don't believe I'm reading what I'm reading.
Lets start off with a gem from Mr Nunweek.
"but the fact is hutchinson, describes the man as being present at that location at that time, so he did exist... "
well I have just seen a man outside my house nine feet tall with two heads. He is wearing a pink frilly tutu and a set of diving fins. Skin colour green with red tinges, two of his eyes are brown two are blue and the other is bright pink. Since I have just described a man as being present at that location at that time, according to Mr Nunweeks logic he obviously exists!!
You obviously don't entertain the possibility he might have been fibbing?
Next.
"Regarding Hutchinson, we should remember, that he was reluctant to come forward at first "
Where does that come from. Hutchinson showed no reluctance to come forward. When it was imperative to do so he came forward.
Now one from down under.
"Hutchinson wasn't the Ripper because why would he come forward to introduce his name to the investigation? "
Gosh so that means criminals never ever thrust themselves forward into the limelight of a police investigation? No wait a bit, that's precisely what a lot of criminals do, so many in fact that it is often part of an offender profile.
With deductive reasoning of this calibre I can't wait to see this book.
Bob
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I with respect, am also flabbergasted,Hutchinson did not describe a person nine feet tall,with two heads , wearing a pink frilly tutu , etc, etc,
Inspector Abberline would have never fallen for that one, but he did accept Hutchinsons statement,
stating that he believed the man.
You will have to read our book to understand why he believed him.
Bob.
The murder of kelly occured on the 9th nov, hutchinson came forward on the 12th nov, although he tried to do so on the 11th,of course he was reluctant to come forward at first everybody in london heard about the latest murder on the 9th , he proberly was scared to approach the police who at that time,was desperate to put somebody in custody.
Bob.
I Really enjoyed your book, it was throughly entertaining, and the ending was completely unexpected, full credit to you sir.
Leanne and myself, but I Can only speak for myself here to be fair,will produce a book that hopefully will be just as entertaining,we obviously will disagree on Hutchinsons involvement, but everybody disagrees with everybody on this case, which is the entertaining factor surely.
Regards Richard. |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 41
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:31 pm: | |
Not this kind of offender, Bob. A disorganized offender like many profilers to believe the Ripper to have been would hardly have chosen to draw attention to himself.
As far as Hutchinson goes, I've always been a bit skeptical of the incredible detail contained in his statement. I believe he probably saw someone, but may have chosen to elaborate on his description in a misguided effort to please the police. Then again, I suppose he could just be someone who pays very close attention to people's appearances. Being a writer, I do the same thing myself, particularly when I'm bored and otherwise unoccupied, as Hutchinson appeared to be. In the Carpenter case, one witness who gave an extraordinarily precise definition of the suspect turned out to be a plastic surgeon, so he had reason to pay such close attention. Some people just do. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:50 am: | |
G'day,
BOB: I'm with you on the: 'But the fact is Hutchinson describes the man as being present at that location at that time, so he did exist' thing.
Hutchinson was taken around Spitalfields by a police officer to look for his suspect. Arrests were made then the suspects were freed. But if Hutchinson identified them, they must have been guilty!
Richard got the reluctance to come forward thing by the fact that Hutchinson waited until after Mary's inquest had concluded before he came forward....then claimed he was concerned for her well-being!
Richard and I haven't been able to come up with an answer discussing Hutchinson's inclusion to the case, looking at him from two different angles. A reader will be left to make up his/her own mind.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 3:34 am: | |
Hi Erin
I Agree with you, some people have a certain knack of storing imformation about peoples appearences.
Call me nosey, but I went to london a couple of weeks ago by train, something I rarely do, and I can describe now people I saw on that train, and on the underground, simply because I observe people of intrest.
Hutchison according to his son Reg, had a eye for detail, his profession resulted in him having to give clients estimates, I know people will say, But was this person the real Hutchinson?.
I would say Yes.
Reg was on the radio in the early nineteen seventies, recalling his fathers experiences at the time of the murders, he said his father was possitive that he saw the man he described with Kelly, and his biggest regret, was that the police, never found the man.
so to sum up, I Believe along with Abberline, his statement was dead accurate, and in the book Leanne, and myself are writing[ Leanne does not know as yet my ideas on this] I will explain why Abberline was excited by Hutchinsons statement.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:48 am: | |
G'day Richard,
I just thought of a good point about Hutchinson's late appearance....I'll write it into our book!
I can't wait to read your ideas on this subject!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Richard, Leanne
Yours will be the first book I can read in stereo!
Well, it'll definitely have twin speakers.
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 1:34 pm: | |
Richard,
I'm sorry but you are wildly off the mark again. You say:
"The murder of kelly occured on the 9th nov, hutchinson came forward on the 12th nov, although he tried to do so on the 11th,"
Where does this information come from? Why Hutchinson of course - I say again you seem to view the idea of him fibbing as completely impossible. Let us look at his claim.
Police in those days walked a specific beat, they were not allowed to leave this beat until relieved by a sergeant. If Hutchinson had indeed approached a constable on the 11th all he would have to do is to say where and when he met the officer for that Constable to be immediately identified. This officer was never identified. Could it be because he never existed? In any case let us for one moment say that Hutchinson was telling the truth. why didn't he just leave the officer and go to a police station, after all that's what he did the following day?
Hutchinsons statement is important not because of what he said, it is obviously bogus, but when he said it.
Again you make the same mistale when you talk about Hutchinson's son Reg. Who says Hutchinson had a son called Reg? Why Reg. In spite of the fact that Regs fathers handwriting was examined by Sue Iremonger and found not to be the same as the signature on the statement, in spite of the fact that Regs father was not George Hutchinson as evidenced by the statements, but George William Topping Hutchinson, you still believe the uncorroborated most unlikely version given by this chap Reg.
I'm quite sure you can describe people in detail if you study them for several minutes in a good light, that talent is not unique. What I say is impossible is that in a glimpse of less than a seconds duration of a face in deep shadow, anyone could not only give you a description of the mans eyebrows but also the type of spat he was wearing. The distance between the two objects cannot be taken in by the human eye at close quarters. Try it yourself. Stand someone at a distance where you can see the top of their head and the bottom of their feet in the same view without moving your eyes. You will find its about 10 to 15 yards, and at that range you can't possibly see what colour eyebrows he has.
I have challenged people on several occassions to walk this whole scenario through, and I think it would be a very valuable exercise. So if anyone's interested let me know.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
in addition,
I don't believe Abberline did believe Hutchinson, and there are plenty of indications to show this.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
With respect,I Would expect a view that you have expressed, after all Hutchinson is your baby.
However it is a fact that hutchinsons son , and we have no doubt that the person approached by the BBC researchers in the early seventies, was the real mccoy, gave a good account of his fathers activities on the night of the 8th-9th Nov 88,and gave a good insight into the man himself.
Bob. Did you hear the broadcast on the BBC radio I believe it was around 1973, I remember it was about 45 minutes in total?
I certainly did, and unless we are suggesting that this man was a imposter, and he was joe bloggs of the street, and the BBC were going out on a limb to fool the audience, I For one am willing to believe the real son of George Hutchinson, whether his name was Reg ,or not was making that recording.
I am suspicious by nature, but I Cannot accept that all the witnesses in this case , were liars, we have to believe some ,otherwise where do we start in our hunt for Jack..?.
With regard to Hutchinsons perfect description, I put it to you, is it not within the realms of possibility, that GH, Knowing Kellys profession,fully aware that the man known as Jack The Ripper, was lurking in the neighbourhood, would show some concern for kelly, being picked up [ so he thought] at that time of the morning, especially someone dressed in that manner, carrying a parcel in his hand.
I would suggest to you that he would have feared for her safety [ as he mentioned] and would have paid more than scant attention to this indervidual.
One more point Bob.
You say that Abberline did not believe Hutchinson,
I Was of the opinion he was quoted ' that he had questioned the man , and he for one 'believed the man'
I hate to use this phrase, but I Believe I have a hunch why Abberline believed him , but all will be revealed in the book...Sorry for teasing as posters would say.
Regards Richard. |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
Richard,
Your discussion on Reg is very interesting. I have never heard the broadcast and would love to hear it or at least read the text. I wonder though that if (just supposing) Hutchinson did lie to Abberline, would it be a far stretch for him to repeat the story to his son? Also, I understand that according to Reg, Hutchinson regretted not finding the man he saw Kelly with. Did Hutchinson ever express any remorse that he did not have the sixpence for Kelly? Perhaps if he had, she would not have taken that man in.
I have read in the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion that Hutchinson was not employed at the time he gave his testimony yet he claimed that he had given money to Kelly often. Why is he in Whitechapel at that time of night without any money at all? If he had given money to Kelly before, she sure took his word for it quickly that he had none (according to his testimony).
What I know about Hutchinson is that he:
1. Was in Whitechapel on a dreary night very late and without money.
2. Was unemployed at the time.
3. Claims to have known Kelly and to have given her money for some time and gives testimony making him one of the last individuals to see her alive.
5. Watches a man go with Kelly who has a small black bag and does not alert police right away.
5. Watches Kelly's room for about 45 minutes and then heads off in to the night.
Even if he were not up to no good, Hutchinson sure has questionable habits.
One last thought, if he knew Kelly for the time period he claimed, "about three years", would he be our strongest link to Kelly? If so, why wasn't he at her funeral?
Warm regards,
Rod |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 164
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 9:23 pm: | |
Hi Rod,
I think Hutchinson's description indicates the man was carrying a "parcel wrapped with a kind of strap", not a "black bag".
As Bob has rightly pointed out, Hutchinson's description includes too many details about things one would not see, or think to look for. Why look to remember the colour/length of someone's eyelashes? Eyebrows might be noticable if they were say "large and bushy" etc, and might stand out even if you were not paying particular attention to their face, but their eyelashes? The description of the man's clothes go from head to toe, describing individual articles all the way from top to bottom. We have two versions of his description recorded, and the similarity is good, but really it's almost too good. It sounds practiced.
Without being able to interview Hutchinson ourselves, we are left with what seems to be a very unreliable witness. For example, he may simply have filled in details when he later learned of Mary's death and tries to recall the man he saw. Now knowing that this man is "the Ripper", his memory may fill in all sorts of stuff that he didn't really see at the time. He then memorises this "reconstructed memory", and repeats it as his description. In this hypothetical scenerio, we have an innocent Hutchenson who is truely trying to help and who did see something; what exactly he saw, however, we have no way of knowing because his recall has been contaminated.
An alternative is less altruistic, and Hutchinson may have seen Mary, not paid much attention to the fellow, can't really remember a thing apart from seeing her with some fellow, but fabricates a detailed description on the hopes that he can claim any subsequent reward. Or even just to get his name in the papers and recieve his 15 minutes of fame. Still, this hypothetical situation is along the lines of him innocent of being the Ripper, but not really trying to help the investigation.
The third, and most sinister situation, is that Hutchinson fears that he was spotted by a witness. He now has to explain his presence at Miller's Court at a time that puts him very close to the murder. To do so, he fabricates a story, tries to appear helpful, all to distract the investigation away from himself because he is the one who, in fact, killed Kelly. Meaning, Hutchinson is Jack the Ripper, and his testimony is a story he makes up to achieve two purposes 1) explain why he was spotted and 2) deflect the investigation away from himself (which might occur because of 1).
What is interesting is that he doesn't include a "shiny black bag", but rather a parcel wrapped with a strap. The "black bag" was the popular "Ripper symbol" at the time (as indicated by the numerous reports in the home office files of people reporting suspicious men with black bags). However, we know that the "black bag" is a red herring and is based upon a witness (in relation to Stride's murder) indicating they saw nobody walk past at the critical times, the only person being a man with a black bag. In this testimony it is clear that the "man with the black bag" was not described as a suspect but rather the witness clearly indicates this person was not suspicious. In fact, this fellow later went to the police, identified himself, and it was determined his bag was what he carried his empty cigarette boxes in (he sold these). In other words, the "original man with the black bag" was cleared of all suspicion.
Anyway, since Hutchinson does not include a black bag, this could suggest that he did in fact see something (suited to the "Hutchinson as innocent and trying to help" scenerio). The details he gives, however, are too precise to be reliable and seem more a description of a theatrical character. One almost expects Kelly to be tied to railroad tracks next. On the other hand, the papers also report suspects carrying parcels (rather than bags), so he could be using these reports rather than the more popular "black bag" myth to add believability to his story (suited to Hutchinson as the Ripper interpretation, or the Hutchinson trying to get a reward scenerio).
Anyway, Hutchinson's story is suspicious for sure. It could indicate he's more directly involved than the police realised. Unfortunately, by itself, it could also indicate he saw something. But, if this later is true, we have no way of knowing what it was he did in fact see. We can't tell what details of his description might be worth considering. Of course, if he is the Ripper, obviously none of his details are of much use.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 3:29 am: | |
Hi Guys,
As I mentioned to Bob, if Hutchinson was unable to give Mary some money, and He did explain to her that he had spent out in Romford, he would have felt partially to blame for her attaching herself to the man loitering near Thrawl street, and he was proberly concerned for her , exspecially as this guy was dressed in different attire then the norm.
Therefore I would say it is a resonable assumption that his concern and intrest, would have made him take in as much description as possible. lets not forget as well as observing the man passing by , he also stood close enough by in Dorset street to overhear their conversation, and to witness mary giving him a kiss , and the passing of a hankerchief, therefore that would have been more time for observation.
I honestly can not see a problem with his evidence, regarding him not attending her funeral, he was not part of the official mourners, but he could well have been part of the crowd at outside the railings at St Patricks.
Anyway how many people have we all known, in our treck through life, that pass on , have we attended every single funeral, if we were asked would be like to be there we proberly would, but otherwise Poor old George etc, would be the way of feeling sadness.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:00 am: | |
Hi all
I think Hutchinson said that during his vigil he saw a policeman pass by at the end of Dorset Street. If Hutchinson was so concerned about Mary's safety (or even just concerned about the reward) you'd have thought he'd have had a word with this policeman.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
I am bewilderd . it appears that some people believe Hutchinson only came forward, because he was scared of being reconized, at some later date by Sarah Lewis, who saw a short stoutman opposite Millers court outside crossinghams.
He apparently was scared of being reconized at some later date, by Mrs lewis, and was paronoid enough to come forward to admit he was on the scene for good reason.
Therefore these posters believe Hutchinson . could be Jack'
Therefore if he was 'Jack' would not he have been worried about, being seen by Elizabeth Long in Hanbury street, plus any other intrested observers, also how about the events in Berner st,. would he not be worried about .that and the witnesses there, also Mitre square , was he not aware of three people nearby. if he was that paronoid, surely he would have come forward saying I was there but........For people who suggest Hutchinson was more then just a realiable witness I say rubbish.
sorry that suggestion does not work with my logic on this case
Regards Richard, |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I believe that Hutchinson could have been Jack. But so could Barnett, Cutbush, Cohen...he's on my suspects list.
I find the whole Hutchinson business very bewildering.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
On more than one occasion serial killers have introduced their own names into the investigation, usually to try to derail it.
If he were the killer (this is just a hypothetical), he may have read in the paper about the testimony placing a man outside in the area early in the night, and, knowing it was him, decided that she might at some point identify him. In this scenario he might have come forward to give himself a reason to be seen in the area, even if it was a really lame one. (I know, I'll just say I was hanging around outside trying to look in the window for no reason, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket...)
See Garry Wroe's book (full and complete on this website) for more info on his theories about Hutchinson:
http://216.167.97.157/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe.html
In my mind, Hutchinson's either a killer, an accomplice, a voyeur / stalker, a pimp, an ex-lover, one truly horrendous liar trying to get reward money or his name in the paper, or some combination thereof. We don't have much to support the idea that he was the killer, but then what we do have is a lot more compelling to me than any other candidate I've heard put forward (with the exception of maybe one of the guys thought to have killed Carrie Brown). Of course "nobody whose name we've heard mentioned yet" is pretty high up on my list too. |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:44 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Huchinson must have felt he had no option but to come forward. Most probably after reading in the newspaper that Sarah Lewis had seen him loitering oposite Millers court on the night of the murder.
In my opinion,Hutchinson concocted his statement with the sole intention of deflecting any suspicion or attention away from himself.
He did so by furnishing the police with a unbelievably detailed description of a strange looking man carrying a long,suspicious looking parcel.
Effectively what he was saying to the police was "forget about what I was doing because I have seen the ripper and I can give you an excellent description of him".
Now I'm not saying Hutchinson was the Ripper but it certainly seems likely that he was up to no good that night.
What is puzzling is that although Lewis merely passed him that night,as she went on her way,
he felt it necessary to admit that he had hung around for 45 minutes,why?
Maybe after reading about Lewis' sighting he wondered whether anyone else had seen him?
Even more puzzling is why Abberine believed his statement.
which ever way we look at it,Hutchinson's story is highly suspicious.
Now here's a thought.
Why,if Abberline believed Hutchinsons amazingly detailed description,isn't Hutchinson considered to be the "Only person whoever had a good look at the murderer".
Surely his sighting was better than Lawende's fleeting glance!
Best regards,
Steven |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
