|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 4:12 pm: |       |
Hi Robert
1126 poats, Well done.., I am afraid, I am at this point, without advertising, cannot go further into an explaning hutchinsons involvement, but it will be done in the forthcoming ----. I have promised I Will not mention the obvious , so i abstain.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 166
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
That's a good point. Indeed, the notion that Hutchinson came forward as a way of explaining his presences at the Kelly Crime scene is often used as the argument to account for this behaviour by those argueing for him being the Ripper. But, as you rightly point out, it begs the question as to why he did not come forward with reference to the other eye-witness statements.
I suppose the arguement would be one, or a combination, of the following lines of reasoning:
1) Previous victims were unknown to Hutchinson so he didn't consider it likely that he would be investigated as a suspect; Kelly is different as he says he knew her - so he feared he could be connected through this association (the "mimial risk of discovery" line of reasoning)
2) Previous eye-witnesses had spotted the victims with someone else, or actually hadn't seen the victim (two versions of the "mistaken identity" line of reasoning).
3) He finally gives in to the urge to insert himself into the investigation (the "X-factor" line of reasoning, meaning we just make something up about him that allows us to ignor previous failures to do so)
4) He just didn't (the "I refuse to acknowledge the problem" line of ?reasoning?)
That's 4 broad categories of counter arguments, with the last 2 (especially the last) being obviously a bit tounge in cheek. Of the lot, the first is probably the most reasonable to suggest because it does link to some things we know about Hutchinson and his relationship with Mary. He does claim to have known her, therefor it is possible he later fears this association will become known to the police, he may then be investigated, he knows he's been spotted by a witness, etc. With previous victims, if there's no link to him directly from the victims, then the descriptions are so generic he's going to be quite confident about not being picked at random.
The 2nd line of reasoning would require one to demonstrate that the underlying assumption is worth serious consideration (that the previous witnesses are mistaken in their identification and saw someone other than the victim; or saw the victim with someone other than their killer). This would be harder to establish, which makes using this assumption more risky, and therefore the case against the subject gets less conclusive.
The 3rd arguement is not totally out of the question, but it resorts to making a specific statement about Hutchinson for which there is no proof other than the behaviour it is trying to explain. It's a circular arguement.
The 4th is really just a joke, but surprisingly, variations on this theme are actually proposed for some aspects of the case.
Anyway, I think there is good reason to keep Hutchinson on the suspect list, but I don't think the case against him is strong enough to consider the case closed. Of course, the biggest part of my problem in terms of making such a decision lies in the fact that I can't find a copy of Bob's book. It's hard to weigh the pro's and con's of a theory when you don't actually have access to the theory itself.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
G'day,
RICH: Most people believe Hutchinson only came forward to clear suspicion or to claim reward money like Matthew Packer did.
The odds are in favour of him hearing Sarah Lewis's testimony. If he was in the public gallery at the inquest, why didn't he speak up in court? Could he have been avoiding a direct face-to-face confrontation with Lewis, who may have said: "OOOOOhhhh, Nnnnno, this man was more...." There is no surviving record of Lewis being asked to pick him from a line-up.
He wasn't the Ripper. Nothing else suggests he was. And I can't think of any reason why the killer would voluntarily introduce himself after making all that effort to remain anonymous!
All this, plus more is in my part of this chapter in our book, so that's all I'm going to say here.
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Dear Richard,
I'm afraid you are sinking deeper and deeper into the mire. You say:
"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"
Well I'm sorry to inform you that it is not a 'fact' far from it. Making ludicrous statements like that must bring into question your effectiveness as a researcher. As for "we" having no doubt he was the real McCoy, who is 'we'?
I've certainly never heard of such a broadcast and judging by the posts there is another poster who has never heard of this either. In any case even if there was such a thing, what does it prove? That perhaps a long time ago a father who happened to have a similar name to someone involved in a famous murder case told his son a tale. Are you now saying that fathers never spin yarns to their children?
I notice you do not address my point about Regs father having different handwriting to the GH or in fact having a different name.
You further compound these errors by saying:
"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"
According to who? Why Hutchinson of course. I say again why do you not accept the possibility that GH was lying? The whole statement is ludicrous and if you just thought about it for a minute you would see that.
According to you the reason GH stayed to look at the man was because he was concerned for MJK's safety. This is also the reason he folows them back to her crib and hangs about for 45 minutes. He is then apparently not so concerned with her safety because he goes away again.
The following day he hears of her murder, but apparently he is not in the 'concerned for her safety ' mode so he does nothing. On Monday, by pure coincidence after the inquest, so he cannot be questioned under oath or cross examined, he then switches to 'concerned for her safety mode' and goes to the police station.
Now am I only person who see's a flaw with this?
As for asking why he didn't come forward for previous eye witness statements, why should he? Lawende said he couldn't identify the person he saw with Eddowes, Mrs Long only saw his back. Sarah Lewis on the other hand had a good look at him, face to face under the lamp of the Lodging house.
You cannot build a case by relying solely on the testimony of a single person who in all probability was lying. His statement just does not stand up in any particular.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
Once again we are at loggerheads, Just because other members at this point in time have never heard of such a broadcast, does not mean that such a radio programme was not aired.
Im afraid Bob , you are looking through blinkers, which is fair, for most of us have our own theorys, and the same applies to us also.
I can assure posters to this site that such a broadcast was relayed, about 30years ago, and I with respect must dispute your opinion , that sinister goings on occured.
Regarding Hutchinsons statement, I fully agree it is a bit over the top, but have you thought of a possibility why that was?.
There are two reasons why G,H., Came forward
A] He was simply relaying the truth[ or part of it]
b]he was a paranoid Jack'
I Cannot entertain [b] so it is my opinion[a] is the answer.
I am sorry if this post is somewhat lacking answers, but I Cant reveal the books climax.
Regards Richard. |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:07 pm: | |
I am so glad that I started this thread. There have been fantastic posts for and against Hutchinson's involvement.
Jeff: Thank you for pointing out my error with the "black bag" and showing how the description of the parcel could make a big difference.
It sure seems to me after considering all sides that Hutchinson would have some explaining to do. If we take the most sinister route and believe him to be the ripper, imagine the amusement he would have had going around the area with the police trying to find the man he claimed was with Kelly. If anyone wonders why he would step forward and talk to the police, his search with the police provides the perfect answer.
I have also considered the possibility that maybe somehow Barnett and Hutchinson worked together, but for the life of me, I can't figure how Barnett (for example) could offer anything to Hutchinson in return for his help.
Bob's "safety mode" arguement is very persuasive. I know the Bob feels very strongly about Hutchinson's involvement. I am not ready to embrace Hutchinson as Jack yet but I have him listed as a strong suspect. At the very least, I don't for a minute believe his entire testimony to be true. Robert said it best that the whole Hutcinson affair is "very bewildering."
I know that Hutchinson claimed he knew Kelly for years. I would find it interesting to know in what capacity he knew her and if Barnett and Hutchinson were aware of one another. Could there be jealousy involved.
Does anyone have knowledge of Hutchinson's trade?
Rod
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:43 am: | |
Hi Rod,
Yes we certainly have had some different views on this thread, very intresting..
Regarding what capacity Hutchinson had known kelly, with just a hint there of possible infatuation .A possibility of course, she was 25 years old, of similar age to george, not unattractive by all accounts.
However how many people of the opposite sex, do we encounter in our daily lives, that we are on friendly speaking terms with, could not it just be a mild friendship,I feel that is the most likely answer.
I still maintain the reason for Hutchinsons behaviour that night was mild curiosity, with a touch of concern, to wait for 45 minutes outside crossinghams, shows a degree of anxiety, that he felt, then after time went by, he assumed that the two of them had retired to bed, and continued to walk the streets.
This lack of trust that such a broadcast took place on a weekday evening around 8pm, some thirty years ago, is frustrating me, am I the only one out there ,that heard this broadcast.
Plea.
I would be grateful if any one out there , whether they are members or not,who remembers that programme, please make it known.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
Richard
You are not using logic to argue your case. You accuse me of wearing blinkers yet adamantly refuse to accept the possibility that Hutchinson was lying.
You also completely ignore any point you are unable to answer. I have already pointed out that even if such a broadcast did exist, what does it prove? Absolutely nothing? Why do you label the telling of fairy stories to young childrne as "sinister" I told my son about Jack and the Beanstalk, it wasn't true but I don't think I did so with any sinister intent!
Once again you have completely ignored the very valid points about Reg's father being the right GH. The handwriting and the name. You have consistantly refused to address these two points. I now challenge you to do so.
You continually come up with one persons account of something and expect everyone to accept it as Gospel because you say so, and you are doing so again with respect of yourself.
"I can assure posters to this site that such a broadcast was relayed, about 30years ago, and I with respect must dispute your opinion , that sinister goings on occured."
Your assurance means nothing. If you expect people to take you seriously you must qualify these statements. For instance you should say: It was broadcast on the Light Programme at 3.30 pm Tuesday 23rd October in the series 'Living History' and copies of the broadcast are available from me"
Now that is not implying you are lying, it is just good academic practice to back up assertions such as this with references. Otherwise what is to stop me saying, " I know GH was the Ripper because he stayed at my grandfathers pub in Slad in 1906 and confessed to the crimes" Now that might very well be correct but I shouldn't expect anyone to believe me unless I can back it up.
Rodney,
As for you point about the black bag versus parcel. Ask yourself this. The black bag myth was quite well established until the murders immediately before Kelly where a person in the Stride murder was seen carrying " a parcel about eighteen inches by six" Speaking from memory I believe it was PC Smith in Berner St.
Now for the next description we have a suspect carrying not a black bag but a parcel. Dont forget the famous red handkerchief incident at the entrance to Millers Court. Wasn't a red handkerchief also mentioned in the Stride/Eddowes murder. In other words GH's statemnets seem to be an amalgam of bits and pieces picked up from other witness statements.
I acknowledge your remark about me being very keen on GH as the Ripper. Perhaps I should explain. When I started looking into who the killer might be, I did so from a slightly unusual angle. Instead of fixing on someone and trying to prove they were, I started looking at people and trying to prove they weren't!
When I came to Hutchinson the biggest stumbling block to him being the Ripper was his lodgings at the Victoria Home for Working men. These were situated on Whitechapel High St and I could not in all truth say that he went from Mitre Square to Goulston St to Whitechapel High St. The route was too ludicrous. Anyway when I did my rechecks with the Salvation Army, who took over the Victoria Homes I found to my amazement it was situated opposite the Princess Alice ( The City Darts now) which is perfectly on route from Mitre Square.
And so it went on, whenever I found a problem with GH being the killer, it soon became obvious that it didn't exist. In the end I came to the conclusion that of all the suspects he was the most likely.
Bob |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
The only Reginald Hutchinson I can find living in London in the 1891 Census is indeed listed with having a father named George. The trouble is, it doesn't seem at all possible that this is the right bloke. The whole Hutchinson family is living at the Woolwich Arsenal, London, an army barracks. George Hutchinson, the father, is listed as 35, as Quartermaster Sergeant, born in Ireland. His son Reginald is aged 7. George has a wife and four other children.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi RJ
The only London-living Reginald Hutchinson in the 1901 census is aged 16, a commercial clerk, born in Bristol and boarding with an elderly widow in Charlton.
Robert |
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 |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:23 pm: | |
I am off to Italy for a few days holiday and look forward to following this thread immensely.I remember back in the Spring trying to get a copy of your book Bob and not having any luck.But then I didnt have a laptop so couldnt order through Amazon.I also must get to a printer and register
as soon as Im back because this isnt working out very well.I hawe read about Reg before but would like to know more about how he was discovered after so long.Hutchinson was my own preferred suspect and Im still wondering about him.However I remain convinced that JtR was suffering from delusions instructing him to carry out these
murders and that despite this he had the presence o f mind and alacrity to get away with it.He also presented as unthreatening possibly even charming
or ingenuous.Schizophrenic individuals do not always present as different or odd as Erin has said and I happen to have known sufficient number well enough to be able to say this.I would agree that once engaged in conversation it is another matter altogether but JtR didnt have time for much conversation did he?I just cant see ,in short how Abberline could have been so hoodwinked by someone like Hutchinson.Looking forward to next weeks posts.......and Leanne and Richards book Best Natalie |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:23 pm: | |
I am off to Italy for a few days holiday and look forward to following this thread immensely.I remember back in the Spring trying to get a copy of your book Bob and not having any luck.But then I didnt have a laptop so couldnt order through Amazon.I also must get to a printer and register
as soon as Im back because this isnt working out very well.I hawe read about Reg before but would like to know more about how he was discovered after so long.Hutchinson was my own preferred suspect and Im still wondering about him.However I remain convinced that JtR was suffering from delusions instructing him to carry out these
murders and that despite this he had the presence o f mind and alacrity to get away with it.He also presented as unthreatening possibly even charming
or ingenuous.Schizophrenic individuals do not always present as different or odd as Erin has said and I happen to have known sufficient number well enough to be able to say this.I would agree that once engaged in conversation it is another matter altogether but JtR didnt have time for much conversation did he?I just cant see ,in short how Abberline could have been so hoodwinked by someone like Hutchinson.Looking forward to next weeks posts.......and Leanne and Richards book Best Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Robert--Thanks for that; I was wondering about the 1901 Census. It seems quite likely that this is the same Reginald Hutchinson that was with father George in Woolwich in 1891, as the boy's place of birth was also listed as Bristol.
Of course, it could be that the Reggy Hutchinson that Richard remembers hearing was born after 1901. Oral traditions are always intriguing to the historian. As George Hutchinson hasn't been indentified to everyone's satisfaction, it would certainly be interesting to find out more about this radio interview and check to see if the details could be confirmed. Cheers.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Bob.
To be perfectly honest,I Cannot say for certain that the person who gave that interview back in the 1970s , was named Reg, I did not make a note
of his christian name.I just assumed.[ Wrong move]
I am intending to write to the BBC, to try and find out more imformation, the date of the programme, the content, and if a tape of the programme is in existance. I will not let this matter rest.
although sometimes blinkered, I do leave them off on occassions, my specuations on this case are extremely broad minded.
you made a very good case against George in your book, and you have my upmost respect for that, leanne and myself aim to make a very good case against Barnett, and George will figure in a different capacity then your conclusions.
I am not avoiding answering your questions, I Admit the real son of george, may not be named Reg, but there was a son,and until I get confirmation to the contary, i will suggest my opinions.
Regards Richard |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Bob
In your book, when discussing Hutchinson's decision to make a statement, you speak of "cool cunning" and "sheer bravado". OK, but isn't this at odds with how you envisage Hutchinson behaving both before and after the murder of Eddowes?
Wouldn't he have shown cool cunning and bravado by going to the police and complaining that a penniless and desperate woman was attempting to blackmail him for crimes he hadn't committed? And, if he must kill Eddowes, wouldn't he have shown more nerve by remaining in the area, to face out any trouble that came his way (if any did), rather than disappearing to Romford - which, if Eddowes had told the police anything, would have been just the sort of thing calculated to arouse their suspicions? Don't his actions in killing Eddowes and disappearing afterwards smack of panic?
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 8:09 pm: | |
Richard,
Atlast you are beginning to gather your thoughts logically. You have moved from:
"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."
and
"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"
to finally admitting that not only do you not have any details about this supposed broadcast, but you are not absolutely sure that the chap was even called Reg. Don't you see how you have totally destroyed any credibility you might have had in this matter. You make definite statements " Reg did this, Reg did that", anyone who doesn't agree with you in this matter you dismiss as rubbish (For people who suggest Hutchinson was more then just a realiable witness I say rubbish.) but at last you finally admit you might have got this whole broadcast thing wrong, or at least are now totally unsure what , if anything, you did hear being broadcast.
What I find strange is that whereas you are totally convinced that what 'Reg' says about his father is true, by definition anything Joseph Sickert told us about his father must be false!
Robert Linford (sounds a bit formal, can I call you Robert?)
Good point about GH. However I believe he would not be so cavalier as to deliberately go to the police unless he had to. It was Sarah Lewis's seeing him that forced his hand. Don't forget if Sarah Lewis had actually lived in Millers Court she would possibly have recognised GH as someone she had seen in the neighbourhood. GH's lodgings were just down the road. She was however just visiting.
I don't think he panicked at all after killing Eddowes, leaving the area was just good sense, if my blackmail theory is correct. He wouldn't know if she had told the police anything. Put yourself in his position ( as theorised by me)
GH is approached by Eddowes sometime in the late afternoon when she tells him that she knows what he's been up to. He gives her a few coppers and promises more later. Eddowes promptly goes off and uses the money to get drunk. They make an arrangement to meet at such and such a time later that night. Next thing GH knows is that she is in the nick. Has she told them anything?
They meet as arranged, she is very conciliatory, even putting her hand on his chest to assure him she hasn't told them anything. Don't forget Lawende said she was very relaxed. GH either renders her unconcious and carries her into Mitre Square or lures her there with the promise of cash. Either way she is murdered. this is a woman who has seen and heard too much, so her ears and her eyes are slashed just to make the point.
Bob
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi Bob
Yes, call me Robert. I don't mind what I'm called, but when I joined there was a Bob, a Rob, and even a Sir Robert, so I've always been called Robert.
The other point I'd like to raise, is that Hutchinson says he told Kelly that he'd spent all his money going down to Romford. On the face of it, this sounds more like a day trip to spend money, rather than a month's stay to earn some.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi Bob.
Just by admitting that I Cannot say for certain that the chap admitting to be George hutchinsons son on the radio, was named Reg, in my opinion does not discredit me , both the man named Reg, and the unseen man on the radio said the same things to a certain extent, both admitted that there father had been paid money for his services to the police, and both were adament that their father was telling the truth.
I for the record ,do not consider everyones different opinions as rubbish, far from it, i respect each and every person who shows a passion for this subject.
Bob, you wrote a book, believing Hutchinson was,a real candidate for 'jack' and I would respect your right to defend him from being discredited, by people like myself who have different opinions, which I have.
I understand your point however, and I Will refrain, from mentioning the broadcast again , until I have heard from the BBC, which I sincerely hope can be of assistance.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
Dear Richard,
What I am trying to say in my own convuluted way is that by saying one thing is a definite fact, and then later on admitting you really don't have the information neccessary to back up that assertion, it does discredit you as a researcher.
As for saying you don't believe other peoples opinions are rubbish, what I posted are your exact words. So what were you trying to say?
However I would ask you to step back a minute before wasting your valuable time. Even if you do track down the broadcast and it is exactly as you remember it still proves nothing. As I pointed out unless you have, or can get some definite proof that the person speaking is in fact the son of THE GH, and that GH told his son the unvarnished truth, you still end up with nothing more than a tale told by a father to his son.
Joseph Sickert for many years told a convuluted tale that was supposedly told to him by his father. Both father/son stories cannot be true as they are mutually exclusive. So where do you go from there?
In my book I put forward several sets of circumstances I believed occured, but I am always careful to point out that these are theories, I am not putting them forward as hard fact.
My last chapter starts:
"Was George Hutchinson Jack the Ripper? It is of course impossible to say, but I believe if the same case occurred today he would definitely be someone the police would want to interview extremely urgently. Look at the circumstances that make him the strongest suspect yet....."
I then list the provable reasons.
Robert,
Yes very good point aboout Romford. There is no way of knowing how long GH spent in Romford OR if indeed he was ever there at all. We only have GH's word for it.
By a strange trick of fate the George Hutchinson I wrongly identified as THE George Hutchinson did have a connection with Romford, his sister was born there!
Another interesting point about Romford is a piece in the local paper which states that a labourer from the East End had been arrested in a local pub for being drunk and telling everyone he was Jack the Ripper!
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
Dear Everyone,
One of the reasons that people believe Hutchinson is that he was apparently believed by Abberline, a very clever and competant detective.
However my theory is that Abberline did not in fact believe Hutchinson. Let us look at the circumstances.
If GH told the straight unvarnished truth then I think I am on pretty safe ground by saying that the man he described either was the killer or certainly the best suspect to date.
Now for my theory.
Abberline reads the statement and realises it is fiction. He has two choices.
1. He can confront GH and say this is bollocks.
2. He can pretend to believe him.
If he takes path 1 all GH has to say is "Prove it" and away he goes. He has however been warned that he is now under suspicion and could easily dissappear.
If he takes path 2 he can lull GH into a false sense of security. If however he puts in a written report he knows that it will be in the press before he can turn round, look at the Leather Apron and Schwartz debacles. So he makes a written report saying he believes him and makes a verbal report to his superiors saying he doesn't.
Now understand this point, I am not saying that Abberline said to himself "I've caught JTR", of course not, he merely believes something is not right and wants to give himself time to investigate.
His primary concern is to prevent any more murders so he sets two officers to follow GH around. This was not done for any other witness, not Mrs Long, Schwartz etc, just GH.
Now for my theory to be correct several things have to happen.
1. There must be a belief amongst senior police officers that GH is not a genuine witness.
2. Abberline himself must show or indicate that he does not believe GH.
3. There might be some indication among senior police officers that there will be a breakthrough in the case.
Did these things occur?
Stay tuned.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
Episode 2.
"There must be a belief amongst senior police officers that GH is not a genuine witness."
Anderson in his memoirs states:
"the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer...."
He then goes on to talk about a witness who wouldn't identify the killer because he was a Jew like the witness. Much discussion has been made about whether Anderson's witness was Lewande or Schwartz, which to my mind is to ignore the salient point.
If the only witness was either Schwartz or Lewande then it certainly wasn't GH. Why has the head of the CID dismissed GH as a witness?
Now if it were only Anderson who gives us cause to doubt GH as a reliable witness I might be on shaky ground, one source is hardly conclusive. But later on McNaghten who has access to all the information on the case writes:
"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer unless possibly it was the City PC......)
Now we are fairly sure that McNaghten has misidentified the PC as being on the City force when in all likelihood it was Met PC Smith involved with the Stride murder, but that is irrelevant, McNaghten makes it quite clear GH is not a reliable witness, otherwise he would have mentioned him. After all GH's description surely beats PC Smiths vague recollections.
Stay tuned
Bob} |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 7:19 am: | |
Episode 3
2. Abberline himself must show or indicate that he does not believe GH.
In 1903 a reporter for the Pall Mall Gazette called on Abberline to get his reaction to the arrest of George Chapman. Abberline explains that he was struck by the coincidences in the two series of murders. He then goes on to say that:
"the peaked cap he (Chapman) is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him (JTR) (Sugden page 452)
GH did not describe the JTR suspect as wearing a peaked cap. First instance of GH description being ignored by Abberline.
The interview proceeds:
" They, (the JTR witnesses) however, state they only saw his back and it is easy to misjudge from a back view.
GH gave a full frontal description not just a back view. Second instance of Abberline ignoring GH description.
And finally think on this. Gh's description is an almost perfect description of George Chapman. If Abberline wanted to bolster his case for believing Chapman guilty, why did he omit the one description given by a witness that would have practically sealed it? Was it because he didn't believe GH and had dismissed him as a credible witness?
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Episode 4
3. There might be some indication among senior police officers that there will be a breakthrough in the case.
After Warrens resignation Monro took over as commissioner, and on the 2nd December G R Sims, the famous reporter who had been avidly following the case wrote:
"It would be strange if the accession of Mr Monro to power were to be signalised by such a universally popular achievement as the arrest of Jack the Ripper. From such information which has reached me, I venture to prophesy that such will be the case."
This is quite incredible after months of getting nowhere, Sims is now confident that a breakthrough is imminent. Where did he get such information from? The inevitable conclusion is from Munro who had only been in the job five days!
Can we conclude that Munro had information that a breakthrough was possible? Who would Munro get this from. Possibly and probably from his long time friend Abberline?
None of the things I have mentioned can be considered cast iron proof, of course not but they do present a substantial body of circumstantial evidence, and didn't a famous judge once say that circumstantial evidence is just as valuable as any other form of evidence as the strands join together to form a net around the guilty party from which escape is impossible?
My purpose in these posts is not to lay down dictums that must be followed, but merely to give you a nudge, to get you thinking about questions that really do need answers if the mystery is ever to be solved!
all the best
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I most certainly will contact the BBC, for I intend at least to prove to these boards , that I am not losing my marbles, if of course I get some satisfaction from them that is.
One point about Chapman[ George] I will agree with your point about a likeness, between him and the astracan man, although I have always believed Chapman was a very small man in statue, surely if Abberline felt strongly about Chapman being a possible suspect, it could have derived from Hutchinsons statement, Abberline was simply relaying a memory from 15 years earlier, and that was evident in his thoughts, during the arrest and trial of George Chapman.
Regards Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
