| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:03 am: | 
|
Hi,
The knowledge that the programme was to be aired i am pretty certain came from the Radio times, the problem being being such a long time ago,i cannot pinpoint a time except it was
around 1972-73 period.
It was broadcast around 8pm and lasted approx 40 minutes. it was not a play or a work of fiction, but a documentary type programme, the topic being 'The man that saw the ripper' the end of the programme featured the alleged son of the man ie George Hutchinson, who claimed that his father was a honest bloke, and he was paid five guineas to assist the police, and during his life he regretted that his efforts failed to get a conviction.
Richard. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
Richard,
I believe you, I really do..
But this programme seems to be untraceable. Maybe you can just gain some peace in knowing that you heard what you did, even if no one else did.
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
Well we do have the R.C Linford proof that there was a prog but sadly NO DETAILS so there (sniff!) we must start looking at a new angle on this I think!!!!!
RIGHT!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where were we????
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 116
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:49 am: |
|
If it was around 1972 - 73 then there's a good chance that my mother listened to it. Sadly she's no longer with us to ask (bugger!)
I don't do seances either...
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Sadly I was around and had been for some time in 72/3....Must put my mind to it....
Lets all join hands 'eh!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Hi all,
It is a great shame that it appears that yours truely was the only one tuned in that night that at least frequents these boards.
The fact is as Bob rightly states even if the person who claimed to have been the son of GH, relayed the truth to the listeners, there is no certainty that his father was telling the truth.
It is purely up to the individual to make there own decision.
Do we collectively believe that GH, was the person that murdered MJK, and was that a copycat murder from a 22year old man, or was he indeed the infamous 'Jack'
Common sense tells me no, and because of this i accept his observations without question, and the fact remains so did Abberline, my only question is What was a man dressed in his sunday best doing loitering around commercial street at 2am, in conditions that were dismal.
I have often offered a expalnatíon[ Lord mayors day] but that seems to have been rejected.
Richard.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Richard-
Yes I must admit here it is a shame........as Bob said a while back here,fathers do tell the odd 'elaboration' to impress their offspring,and consequently" there is no certainty here that dad was telling the truth.
Maybe Abberline interviewed GH...............
he of the MJK,Romford etc etc ......and came to his decision..again we'll never know!
As to our man wandering the streets in 'his best togs' there are lots of reasons for this surely...a)slumming (although a tad dodgy!)
b)Lurching back through Whitechapel...probably a bad move but ....maybe after a do of some sort!
c) A mystery doctor/lodger or something!
d).The Lord mayor's Show.........yes a serious 'do' on the day.....sadly Mary's last....although she wanted to go tho.............Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hey Richard-
I see the 1970's Radio prog has bubbled to the surface on the Gull thread!!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:43 am: |
|
Happy Christmas! chaps whatever!
suzi |
Theron Helton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Suzi, Brian, Lindsey, et al. I Have watched this site 4 years and am amazed at people like yourselves that flap their jaws for hours (Days?) and say nothing / get nowhere. Get lives for yourselves. Martin Fido correct with Nathan Kaminski / David Cohen assessment. No other KNOWN character SO FAR fits ALL the facts.
Merry Christmas ! |
NC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Hopefully someone else will recall that programme, at least to put your mind at rest if nothing else.
My thoughts (largely in agreeance with MR Hinton)are :
1. GH is a strong suspect for murdering MJK as we are at least reasonably certain he was there
2. Assumptions that Abberline took GH's statement to be accurate and cleared him immediately are just that - apparently clearing a suspect and then shadowing them is as old as policing itself.
3. In order to gain more evidence on GH, Abberline sent him out to the streets to find Mr Astrakhan; not with the expectation of finding him but to maybe find a hole in his story. Why send two experienced detectives with him when one constable would be plenty trawl around with GH?
4. Even with plenty of circumstantial evidence to identify GH as MJKs killer, in the absence of motive or some linkage to the women we can only speculate on his being Jack.
Neale |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi NC!
I'm sure that MR Hinton will be gratified to hear your remarks!
Actually! hate to say it you have some damned good points here!
Sign up 'eh?
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I agree Bob will be gratified in hearing Nc's remarks.
I Would suggest the reason why he sent two 'Experienced detectives ' around with GH, was to give him every assistance in identifying the man he saw.
I would dispute that our George's visit to the police alarmed Abberline, and he gave him a confidence boost, by pretending to believe him.
What circumstancial evidence.
Did he suspect Mrs Long who put herself outside 29 Hanbury street at the relevant time , or Schwartz who passed by Dutfields yard at the relevant time.
if he did suspect Gh, of involvement, nothing came of it, he even wasted five guineas of police funds.
Richard.
|
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I managed to get a look through some TV and radio listings for 1972/3 and found that JTR was a very popular program subject in both years, most of the listings I found were for fictional accounts though, but I did find in a features section for the BBC a brief mention of an upcoming documentary on Count Dracula, the opening line of the programme description mentioned a previous documentary on Jack the Ripper, and count Dracula was to be the next subject tackled. I couldn't work out whether they were describing a TV or radio programme though.
Debra
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:22 am: |
|
Richard,
I very much doubt that Aberline gave any indication to Hutchinson,as to whether he believed or disbelieved the statement.
As to Aberline's report to his superiors stating a belief in Hutchinson's truthfulness,I wouldn't read too much into that either.
Police are sometimes known to lie to each other.
Neither Mrs Long or Schwartz are believed to have,or said to have,waited for forty or so minutes before moving on. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:18 pm: |
|
I have been doing some research into George W.T. Hutchinson, whose son was interviewed in The Ripper and the Royals. The result so far are below:
George William Topping Hutchinson
Birth registered in Lambeth in the last quarter of 1866 (Volume 1d Page 453)
Hutchinson married in the second quarter of 1898:
The marriage was registered at Mile End between George William T Hutchinson and Florence Jervis (Volume 1c Page 806)
Florence Jervis was the daughter of John Jervis, a sawyer, born in Burseldon, Hampshire in 1841 and Susan Jervis born Swansea, Wales, in 1845. Addresses for the family so far traced are:
1891 - 189 Manchester Street, Poplar
1881 - 57 Rhodeswell Street, London.
1901 Census:
80 Tower Street, St George the Martyr, London
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 35 born Surrey - Plumber
Wife:
Florence Hutchinson aged 32 born Middlesex
Children:
George aged 2
Albert aged 1
Both born in Middlesex
1891 Census
Listed as a lodger at a lodging house at 69 Warren Street, Tottenham Court, London.
His details are given as follows:
George W.T. Hutchinson aged 24 born Norwood, London
(The initials are given in the index as G.W.S. but comparison with the enumerator's writing shows this should be G.W.T.)
Lodger
Single
Plumber
1881 Census
He is still living at home with his father George and sister Jane.
Address:
4 Roper Street, Eltham, Kent.
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 54 born Chelmsford, Essex
Plumber
Widowed
Children:
Jane Hutchinson aged 19 born Hornchurch, Essex
Housekeeper
George W. Hutchinson aged 14 born Norwood, Surrey
Scholar.
There is a birth entry for a Jane Emily Hutchinson in Romford (4a 113)in the 2nd quarter of 1861, which would fit the age given in the 1881 census.
In 1871 the ages for both George Snr and George Jnr are oddly awry (in the case of George Jnr this is a misreading in the index). The aged of George Snr should read 34. This is undoubtedly the same family as trade, family members and places of birth fit exactly.
5 Champney Terrace, Norwood, Lambeth
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 24 (sic) born Chelmsford, Essex - Plumber
Wife:
Jane Hutchinson aged 39 born Cambridge
Children:
George aged 4 born Surrey
Jane aged 10 born Hornchurch, Essex
Lodgers:
Henry Goswell aged 23 born Middlesex - Carter
William Mayhew aged 38 born Clanfield, Essex - Carter
Thomas Sullivan aged 23 born Ireland
Savina Sullivan aged 22 born Tottenham
William Bailey aged 38 born Sussex - Gasfitter
Ellen Bailey aged 23 born Lewes, Sussex
As George Snr is listed as widowed in 1881, his wife, Jane, must have died at some time between the censuses of 1871 and 1881. In 1871 the family was living in Lambeth, so it is possible the death would have been registered there. There are two possible entries in that range of years where the age at death is approximate to what we would have expected from the census. In the 3rd Quarter of 1872 the death was registered at Lambeth (1d 291)of a Jane Hutchinson aged 38. The 1871 census would have indicated her age in that year to be 40. In the 3rd quarter of 1881 the death of a Jane Elizabeth Hutchinson was registered, also at Lambeth (1d 225) aged 46. The age as calculated from the previous census would have been 48.
By 1891 George Snr. had remarried and had fathered another son.
Address:
4 Lenham Road, Lee, London
Head:
George Hutchinson aged 63 born Chelmsford, Essex
Plumber
Wife:
Emma Hutchinson aged 41 born Upton
Son:
Herbert Hutchinson aged 1 born Lee, Kent
Niece:
Agnes M. Wratton aged 14 born Lee, Kent
Tracing back from Agnes M. Wratton to 1881 we find:
Address:
29 Taunton Road, Lee, Kent.
Head:
George Wratten (sic) aged 27 born Detling, Kent
Gardener
Wife:
Harriet Wratten aged 32 born Upton, Buckingham
Children:
Agnes M Wratten aged 4 born Blackheath, Kent
George W. Wratten aged 1 born Eltham, Kent
As Harriet Wratten and Emma Hutchinson were both born in Upton, the most likely relationship is that Agnes is George Snr.'s niece by being his wife's sister's daughter.
Of course the intriguing loose end is that George Jnr. had a sister called Jane who was five years older. IF this is the George Hutchinson of Kelly fame, could this be the sister in Romford he had been visiting? Certainly there are plenty of Essex connections but I have yet to find a positive 1891 identification and location for Jane Hutchinson.
Any further developments I will post here.
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on December 28, 2004)
(Message edited by Chris on December 28, 2004) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Sensational research..the number of Kentish /Essex references here are I must admit.. interesting!
George William Topping though?...is this our Hutch?
suzi |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
This is the George Hutchinson identified in The Ripper and the Royals whose son, Reg Hutchinson, said of his father:
"I remember he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police."
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Yes..
I know that.....was just suggesting this may not be the same George....the Ripper and the Royals George and Abberline's man may just be two different characters
Suzi
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi - apologies for making a point you already knew:-)
The reason for the rsearch was to see what links, if any, the GH from Ripper and the Royals has with the story of Abberline's GH.
I am not claiming that he is one and the same - that cannot be argued from the facts available
All the best
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 9:16 am: |
|
Oh dear!
OK hands up to that one!:/
As to the Georges various I agree.Just wish we could prise 'em apart eh?
Best too!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi,
I hate to repeat myself , but surely there is no question that George william Topping was the George of ripper fame.
The somewhat illusive radio broadcast that i heard early seventies, and the Ripper and the royal contents from alledged son Reg, were the same, so it is abundantly obvious that unless the late Reg was a fraud it was the same man.
Regarding the argument that the signature appears different on the statement and the signature of Regs father, i can only say that there has to be a simple [ or complicated...] explanation for this.
Lets return to the broadcast, i would assume that researchers for the intended programme traced a desendant of GH, that person being son Reg, who agreed to comment on his father.
In order for any kind of fraudelent act on behalf of Reg, it would imply that the researchers traced the wrong Hutchinson, and son Reg simply made out his father was the man.
I cannot see any reason for the guy doing that.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Richard-
'I would assume that the researchers for the intended programme traced a descendent of GH'
I would assume though too but 'researchers' being what they are maybe 'Reg' decided this was too good an opportunity to miss,if Dad's gone a certain type of man may just think... I could just say ..Ooooh Yes thats the case and take in Melvyn and the BBC in one fell (or should that be foul) swoop!
Suzi |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 98
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:53 pm: |
|
There's no reason to assume that George Hutchinson was ever anything but an objective witness. The intriguing aspect to his evidence is that he describes, in detail, what Eastender's called a 'swell and nobby person'- a well dressed gentleman, somewhat like a Lord, at the scene, and Abberline ( whom we trust) took his evidence etxremely seriously. The reason the author of the Ripper and the Royals took Reg Hutchinson so seriously is that he was prepared to reiterate that his father told the truth and had had no reason to lie. Interviewing the son wasn't really nessecary but it gives the fact that Hutchinson was a witness some immediacy, which Melvin Fairclough enjoys doing. He used that immediacy to support his claim that Spencer Churchill was a murderer on the scene, which seems most unlikely.
Witnesses selected by the Officers were very carefully interviewed and vetted.
Furthar point; I've noticed that alot of signatures in various old police files have statements signed by Police Officers in place of witnesses who dictated their names to Officers who wrote their names on their behalf. This might explain any handwriting discrepancy.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Kitty-
I would assume that George..calling in to see Insp Abberline was a regular sort of chap but also what you describe as an 'Eastender' i.e. someone who had to look out every which way to keep body,soul,lodgings and mind together...not neccessarily in that order.
As to the verification of'Reg' Hutchinson,I'm sure that our Reg was fully aware of George Hutchinson's statement and wasn't above getting into the game so to speak.!
As to the signatures..there is no evidence that George H was incapable of signing his name in fact the signature we are all familiar with looks very in keeping with the handwriting of the day aka a carefully studied hand in the all to brief time spent at school.
Suzi
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Good news Suzi. At times Police did replace the witness' signatures but it would be good to think that George may have signed his own.
I can imagine how Reg wanted in. It must be a little extraordinary for him though, to know that his father saw the man's face! Hard to imagine, almost. :-)
I wonder what did cause Abberline such intrigue, and to take him so seriously. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |
|
I imagine George did manage that!
Nothing to do with Abberline here I think just a copper doing his duty!and the usual run of late comers into the station...Oh Mr Abberline.....I feel I should describe a man etc etc .....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm and thanks for the 5 guineas.....but oh dear Im the wrong George......Oh well never mind ta anyway!!
Suzi |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
hmmmmmm I'm not sure Suzi. On the microfilm of the file there's a great deal of personal notes Abberline made on Hutchinson. He simply didn't do that for everyone. Abberline writes to his superintendants and he says 'I think it's very significant', I forget what exactly.
Intriguing! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:31 pm: |
|
The fact is that you forget what exactly Kitty! Cant have been that significant!
Regards
Suzi |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 104
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 8:20 pm: |
|
I'll try and find the actual reference, tomorrow. I just had a quick look in the Evans and Skinner and they haven't reproduced it, another interesting omission. Abberline writes to his chiefs saying that he thinks the Hutchinson evidence is of great importance. I'll get you the reference asap. truly, he did. It's always been a real intrigue of the case I think, though of course that's no reason to go assuming Hutchinson saw Spencer Churchill ! :-)
kitty.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:01 am: |
|
Hi!
RANDOLPH (Henry SPENCER Churchill was the youngest son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough.
Winston SPENCER Churchill also shared the Spencer name.
It is at the end of the day a FAMILY NAME.! The result of Churchills and the Spencers marrying for way too long!
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
G'day,
I fail to understand why George Hutchinson would come forward to the police to intoduce his name to the case if he was the sought after killer. I believe that if he wasn't an accomplice, he knew something more than he told.
Sarah Lewis told the inquest little more than the man she saw wore a wide-awake hat, so those who believe that her testimony made him come forward must believe that every man in the East End who owned a wide-awake hat must have been swetting!
I looked in my 'Ultimate Companion' book at things that could have brought him out of hiding and saw that all documents relating to the pardon of an accomplice were dated '10 November 1888'. That was the 2 days before Mary Kelly's inquest and the day after the discovery of her body, which would explain perfectly why he didn't come forward then.
File A49301B, FOLIO 300 was a letter from Henry Matthews to a Mr. Lushington stating: 'Dear Lushington, The Cabinet have decided to offer today a pardon to any one but the actual murderer in the case that occurred yesterday.'
Then there's a letter written on the same day from the Prime Minister to Queen Victoria notifying her of the decision.
MEPO 3/3153 ff.-5-8 is a cover letter to Sir Charles Warren from the Home Office, November 10 that says: '...the Sec. of State will advise the grant of a Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being the person who contrived or actually committed the murder, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the murderer or murderers.' Then imediately underneath is an indication that a notification was sent to the press on 12/11/88, so word of this pardon wouldn't have been read by the public until the 13th, or the day after Hutchinson came forward.
I wonder was there any way that Hutchinson could have found out about this offer of a pardon before the 13th, because that's the only reason I can think of for why he came forward when he did.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 60
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Hey Leanne,
"Sarah Lewis told the inquest little more than the man she saw wore a wide-awake hat, so those who believe that her testimony made him come forward must believe that every man in the East End who owned a wide-awake hat must have been swetting!"
I've dealt with this in the "Was Mary Kelly Killed in her Sleep" thread. Would appreciate your thoughts on it.
To me, it is unbelievably, screamingly obvious that GH introduced his name into the case to validate and account for his presence outside Crossingham's lodge at 2:30am on the morning of the murder. Why he did this is anyone's guess, but, in my opinion, all but one explanation flies haphazardly in the face of common sense.
I have trouble engaging with the logic which says, in effect: "Yes, yes, Hutchinson is obviously lying, but I can't believe he's the murderer, because to do so would be to interfere with my previous decision that {fill-in-the-blank} was the murderer...so I'll have to think of ANOTHER reason why GH might be lying".
Trouble is, all the "other reasons" are woefully flawed. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
I know you've 'dealt with this' in the thread about Mary Kelly, but I felt that the issue belonged on a thread relating to George Hutchinson!
I nearly started a new thread titled something like: 'Offer of a Pardon' because I thought this deserved a lot of contemplation whether it could have influenced Hutchinson's decision to finally come forward.
I'll respond to this last post of yours in greater depth later because I've printed it out and will write my response on a piece of paper over lunch.
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 63
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Hey Leanne,
I know you've 'dealt with this' in the thread about Mary Kelly, but I felt that the issue belonged on a thread relating to George Hutchinson
Quite right.
And please be assured that I had no dismissing motive in stating that I had "dealt with" this particular issue.
Best wishes,
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:34 am: |
|
G'day Ben,
'To me, it is unbelievably, screamingly obvious that GH introduced his name into the case to validate and account for his presence outside Crossingham's lodge at 2:30am on the morning of the murder.'
What about the 40ish y.o. man that Elizabeth Darrell saw talking to Annie Chapman? Darrell gave a more detailed description that Sarah Lewis and said the man wore a deer-stalker hat. Then there was:
The 28 y.o. man seen by Police Constable Smith outside Dutfields Yard, who also wore a deer-stalker hat.
The above witnesses gave much more detailed descriptions to the police, couldn't have been describing the same man because of the age difference, yet no one felt it necessary to account for their pressance and claim their innocence. Everone in the 30-40 age group that owned a deer-stalker hat must have been having fits!!!!
'I have trouble engaging with the logic which says, in effect: "Yes, yes, Hutchinson is obviously lying, but I can't believe he's the murderer, because to do so would be to interfere with my previous decision that (fill-in-the-blank) was the murderer...so I'll have to think of ANOTHER reason why GH might be lying".'
Firstly, I never once said that Hutchinson's statement was ALL lies. I believe he knew much more than he was willing to say. He didn't give a reason why he waited outside Miller's Court for an hour, other than to "see if they came out."
Then what did he intend to do? Was he going to mug the man and hope that he had some money left? Or was he going to approach Mary Kelly and ask her for a 'free-be'?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Of course it is not presumed that everything Hutchinson said would be a lie.Some things could be checked,such as his aquaintance with Kelly.He may have been a sometime customer,may have frequented the same pubs,and she may have told of any association with him to friends.Things like this the police would be searching for,in time.So coming forward may have been sensible if it was true.
The only thing to be avoided ,was putting himself there and no reason for it,and really he never did give a satisfactory reason.
The state of dress he describes might invite momentary attention,but not enough to follow and wait in the cold for 45 minutes.Hutchinson says he did not believe the person was the killer,and Kelly was not a person that might invite robbery,so what suspicion of the man could there be?.He never says.
A man meeting and going with Kelly to her room, is an alibi,and the person producing that alibi is George Hutchinson. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3322
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Hi
Just perusing all these Hutch threads, thought that an image of a 'wideawake hat' may be useful.
This 'model' is dated 1720-1817
Also in this scene from 'Work'-(1852-63)- Ford Madox Brown, Carlyle (left) is depicted wearing a wideawake hat
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3323
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
The whole wonderful painting!!..quite a statement on the Victorian class structure, the great reformers of the time observe the laying of a sewer in Hampstead.
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Hello Leanne,
Thanks for your latest.
Unfortunately, the nature of Lewis' description doesn't invalidate my general premise that the man "staring up at the court" at 2:30am on the morning of the murder was GH, and further, that he offered his witness statement to validate his presence there.
Elizabeth Darrell, by her own admission, did not see the Hanbury Street suspect's face, and as such, we can safely discount her description of a man aged "over 40". A claim to have indentified a suspect's age can only be given credence if the witness saw the suspect's face - Darrell/Long didn't.
I'd excercise caution when attaching too much importance to the "deerstalker hat" detail. Do we imagine that the ripper was incautious enough to wear the same hat for every murder?
Suzi - Many thanks for providing the Wideawake hat image. Can someone provide a link to the cartoon image depicting Hutchinson, kelly, and Astrakahn. I want to check Hutchinson's hat. 
Best Regards,
Ben |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3324
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Ben
Am on the case gimme a mo
Suzi |
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 520
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Suz,
Thanks so much for posting an image of that wonderful Ford Maddox Brown painting. One of my favourites -- and I've never given any thought to the hat being a 'wideawake' before..
Love ya,
Lyn
Although present on the occasion, I have no clear recollection of the events leading up to it.
Winston Churchill
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Suzi
Great Victorian Picture.
And the hat was informative for me since these terms wideawake and deerstalker etc, were confusing for me and I could not visual what these hats looked like untill seeing examples such as yours.
regards
Julie
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3326
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
Hi Julie-
This is a deerstalker...much (supposedly)loved by Sherlock Holmes
These are bowlers
...And of course we all know what these are!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Suzi
Thank you, now at least I have a clue when it comes to the different hats
regards
Julie
|
Tim308
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
I don't know how useful this is, but I found it curious that the program that Reg Hutchinson was on could not be found. Using some news database sources I found that The New York Times had an abstract base and had run an article about a show that ran as such:
6-part BBC TV series to be shown on WNEW-TV from Mar 11 through 16 (in 1974) details clues in case of Brit murderer Jack the Ripper (M).
Could this contain info concerning the mysterious interview. Could information from the interview be in this 1974 6 part series? Anybody seen it?
Somebody mentioned that a Count Dracula interview followed the JTR interview:
Dennis Wheatley was interviewed about Count Dracula and the occult in 1971 in a radio interview. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page