|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 1:20 am: |       |
G'day,
In Hutchinson's written statement, (which appears in 'The Ultimate Sourcebook'), he described his suspect as having a 'pale' complexion and a 'slight' moustache. Yet in the newspapers his suspect had a 'dark' complexion and a 'heavy' moustache. Why the change?
NATALIE: I agree with you. The police were definately keeping the true description from the newspapers and the public.
I don't think it matters whether a hanky was found in the room or not, because items of clothing were thrown onto the fire and that fact was definate.
LEANNE
Q: Why do doctors wear masks when they operate?
A: Because if they make a mistake, no one will know who did it!
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
Richard,
You still have not got the hang of this investigation thing have you? First of all you must learn to distinguish between what is a FACT and what is an allegation.
You wrote:
But according to two peices of fact.
a] he officially accompanied by a police officer toured the streets of whitechapel/ aldgate to search for this man.
b] he was alleged to have received the sum of five guineas for his efforts[ four weeks wages for a manual worker of that period.]
How on earth can these be facts if you start your second paragraph by saying "he was alleged"
Either the payment of money is a fact - in which case quote your sources - or its an allegation in which case who cares!
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
This all boils down to the [ I hate mentioning this] the radio broadcast, in which the son of Hutchinson[ alleged] stated that his father[ that being the real George Hutchinson] recalled that he was paid the sum of five guineas for his endeavour to trace the man he saw with kelly at 230am on the morning of the 9th novemeber 1888.
Unless the son made up the whole episode , surely he was refering to his father, who mentioned the story to him.
why should a man which happened to have the same surname recall to his family that he knew the last victim, and relay the events, which are recorded in history.
This has to be the same george Hutchinson logically.
As for it being a fact that the man called George hutchinson toured the area with police assistance surely is a fact as it has been so recorded.
In other words the picture of G,H, that has been shown, is most likely to have been the same man that walked down commercial street at 2am that morning, as sure as it can be.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Robert,I think there was mention of Mary Kelly being seen with a well dressed young man with a dark moustache and dark hair in a pub the previous night [or earlier in the evening.I cant think where the source for that is but it may come back and if it does I"ll post it.
Leanne
I think the reason newspaper reports varied then was for the same reason they often vary today.Some reporters are careful with the facts others not so careful.
natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
But the first description I mentioned wasn't from a newspaper report! It was from George Hutchinson's 3 page, handwritten witness statement, (Ref. MEOP 3/140, ff. 227-9).
A description of a man with a 'dark' complexion appeared in
'The Manchester Guardian' 14 Nov,
'The Pall Mall Gazette' 14 Nov,
'The Star' 14 Nov,
'The St. James Gazette' 14 Nov,
'The East London Advertiser' 17 Nov,
'The Star' 15 Nov.
All of these newspapers also added that the man had a 'dark moustache turned up at the ends.' Try curling a 'slight' moustache up at the ends!
LEANNE
Q: How do you make a witch itch?
A: Easy, just take away the 'w'.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,so what you are saying is that George Hutchinson himself changed his statement to the police?That is strange I must admit.I have often wondered though what form the police "Questioning" took.For example I wonder did they employ a "multiple Choice"type of thing where he had to answer one of three such as Medium brown.Dark Brown,Black...type of thing to get him to be as precise as possible.This could have led to him "rethinking" his colour memory from the darkness of night and altering his answer accordingly dont you think?
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:07 pm: | |
Leanne,
Are you really serious when you take slightly diverging details of a description in news-paper reports as a verification of that Hutchinson himself changed it?
I have seen this phenomenon hundreds of times. One paper gets it wrong (or takes itself liberations) and then the others follow. It is absolutely no proof of that Hutchinson changed the description, merely on sloppy and rather common journalistic work. And even if he did, so what?
You can't hang up yourself on what's being said in the news-paper and certainly not when it concerns such a difficult and unreliable thing as a personal description, which is a questionable piece of "fact" to rely on in the first place.
As far as Hutchinson is concerned:
I have said it before and I'll say it again; Hutchinson didn't come forward until the day after the inquest (we have no evidence of otherwise). He learnt that he had been seen by a witness while hanging out in Miller's Court outside Mary's room. Whereafter he realised that he had to come forward himself and therefore -- in order to avoid suspicion and risk being a Ripper suspect -- had to invent a reason for him being there that would put him in a good and sympathetic position from the police's point of view.
Why he was hanging outside Miller's Court is a mystery and can only be a matter of speculation. Maybe he waited in order to get a piece of the action from one of Mary Kelly's customer, or else he just intended to mug him when he came out. Who knows?
But I find his very detailed description of the man quite suspicious and I totally second to Mikey's opinion, that such detailed information about a person from a witness is quite rare.
And when they do occur, they are for the most part to be considered constructed or complete lies.
I have no idea what Hutchinson did in Millers' Court that night, but it is my belief that he was forced to come forward once he realised that he had been spotted and at least partly invented a story to make him come out as good as possible.
I totally dismiss Hutchinson as a credible witness.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
No, No, No. George Hutchinson gave one description when interrigated by Inspector Abberline straight after Kelly's inquest. Then he gave a differing description to the press during his press conferrence the following day.
I don't think it was a matter of rethinking. I wouldn't mind betting that he was instructed to hide his real description from the public's eyes. The changes weren't big enough to be noticed immediately by anyone official who had axcess to the report at the time.
The 'Ultimate Companion' says that Hutchinson was interviewed by Abberline, who submitted a report which is dated 12th November and was signed by Hutchinson.
The description part is as follows: 'age about 34 or 35, height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes ["dark" - deleted] slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan, and dark jacket under, light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle, button boots and gaiters with white buttons. wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. black tie with horse shoe pin. respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. can be identified.'
I see now that the 'curled up at each end' part of the moustache description was in all descriptions, but the 'slight' aspect of it, became 'heavy'.
The interview must have been verbal, not multiple choice. I can tell because Abberline at first wrote "dark" when writing the description of the moustache, then must have been verbally corrected by Hutchinson with the words: "slight, slight!". The description of the complexion was definately 'Pale'!
LEANNE
Q: What do you get if you cross a dinosaur with a dog?
A: A very nervous mailman!
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:53 am: | |
G'day Glen,
Yes I'm extremely serious! I don't call changing from a 'pale' complexion to a 'dark' one a slight difference, when the Rippers nationality was such a question.
Why do you two insist that this is a difference between NEWSPAPERS that I am talking about? It is NOT, and I am NOT! It's a difference between several newspapers and the OFFICIAL FILES!
I don't care how many times you've said that Hutchinson came forward the day after the inquest. You are wrong! I am looking at a three-page official witness statement that was written on the 12th of November and signed by him. It starts: 'At 6 pm 12th George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home Commercial Street came into this station and made the following statement. About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street...'
Then there's an official report of 12 November 1888, written by Abberline about Mary Kelly's inquest. The last paragraph starts: 'An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrigated him this evening...' Isn't that evidence enough?
Do you honestly believe that Hutchinson was frightened by the testimony of Sarah Lewis, (in which she merely described that he was not tall, stout and wore a wideawake hat), before that information was reported in the newspapers? How long would it have taken police to interview all short men that owned such a hat?
LEANNE
Q: What stays in the corner yet travels all around the world?
A: A postage stamp!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
Hi Leanne,I understand your frustration and agree its a bit odd.Just one point though.As Glenn says there can be one journalist who gets it slightly wrong and others follow.More ,the press associations like the Central news agency sell their story to any number of newspapers and it is often this story that gets copied by them especially when their sub-editors rearrange copy to fit into a newspaper"s space or politics.Its considered more "neutral" copy because it has to play down the disputatious side that might ruffle feathers so it can sell the story to as many papers as possible.Not that this is the reason for the alteration in the report of Hutchinson"s description.But it COULD be why they all seem to be repeating the same tale.Its also worth considering when reading any of the reports of the time.
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
G'day,
I just checked the newspapers that detailed the statements made at the inquest and most appeared on the 13th of November, which was THE DAY AFTER Hutchinson went to the police.
One newspaper, 'The Star' reported about the inquest the same day that it occurred, but I read through it and it told what James Barnett, Thomas Bowyer, John McCarthy, Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater said! Sarah Lewis wasn't mentioned.
It was such a big mistake for one journalist to make, after a conferrence that was likely attended by several!
LEANNE
"Waiter, remove this fly at once!"
"But he hasn't finished yet!"
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
Richard,
You still do not understand the difference between a fact and an allegation. Where you are getting your information from is irrelevant what is relevant is that if you are going to say something is a fact ( you posted)
"But according to two peices of fact."
and then proceeded to say 'it is alleged that....'
IF IT IS ALLEGED IT IS NOT A FACT!
Do you understand now? If you say something is a fact then you must back it with your sources. Leanne stated that GH described the man in such and such a way, and then quoted her source, GH's statement. That is now an accepted fact. A radio programme that only you can remember, cannot recall with clarity, and have absolutely no details of is not a source - its nothing!!!
When I started looking for GH I remember seeing a newspaper article stating his age as 28. Brian Marriner also saw the same article and agreed with me. However neither of us could ever locate the article again so I cannot state it is a fact GH was 28 no matter how much I may believe that to be true and how many witnesses I have who agree with me. All I can say is 'I believe GH was 28 and this is the reason for my belief'. I cannot keep banging away that it is a fact.
In any case even if you produced GH's son alive and well now and he told the story you wanted him to it doesn't make it a fact it makes it an uncorroborated opinion.
I fear that if you constantly jump on to allegations and rumours and insist on everyone accepting them as fact because thats what you believe, you are never going to get anywhere, and any book you produce will be dismissed as worthless.
When I was tracking down GH I was absolutely convinced I had the right man.
1. He was the right age
2. He lived in the right area.
3. His mother died when he was young.
4. He had a Romford connection, his sister was born there.
5. A previously close family was split apart by something that happened between 1885 and 1891.
6. His father completely disowned him in preference to a nephew he had adopted and called 'my son'
Now in spite of all that when I finally got the last piece of the jigsaw it didn't fit and I had to admit I had the wrong guy. Even though I believed what I had was factual and all the pieces fitted - the last bit didn't.
Bob
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Leanne,
Yes, I do believe he was freaked out by Sarah Lewis statement. She told the inquest that she had seen a man standing there and she made a description that fit him -- an yes, it could fit a number of people -- but he couldn't know if he also may have been seen by someone else.
It would be natural for him to be unsure about how much people that had actually seen him and how much. He only read about it (probably), and therefore must have been compelled to come forward before he was futher investigated.
It's clear as day. His description of the man is too detailed to be truthful.
Furthermore, I did know that your first source was his testimony, not a newspaper, but I refer to when the news-paper reports started! When one paper states something incorrect, the others usually follows, even on the same day. Most reporters knew each other, and I have seen this phenomenon hundreds of times. I am astonished at how much weight you lay upon this. To be news-paper, those "errors" are quite mild, compared to others I've seen. I've seen murder by strangulation becoming knife murders in the press!
No offense, but you and Richard are acting like naive children when it comes to news-paper reports. You can't use anything they say as a reliable piece of information. If they deliver a diverging witness description -- so what? What else is new?
And even if Hutchinson did change his description -- so what? There could be a number of reasons for this.
As I see it, that man he encountered with Mary Kelly was a complete fabrication anyway. So therefore the diverging descriptions are totally irrelevant.
Why are you and Richard always focusing on these very strange and irrelevant details? And with obscure newspaper reports to back it up?
Once again: source evaluation, source evaluation...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
What evidence is there that Hutchinson saw or did anything that he attested to,except to be outside Crossingham's.What evidence is there,to accept that he had been to Romford,and was returning.What evidence that Kelly was walking in Commercial Street and returned to her room with a male person.
There is only Hutchinson's word.Not one shred of it is backed by any other witness,except that he was stood outside Crossinghams at the time Lewis? saw him.
And remember,
A bride's wedding day is spoilt if the groom fails to turn up.
A groom's wedding day is spoilt if she does. |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Too all the learned
Man, been out of town for a while and while I was gone this whole post took off, so If i may im gonna shoot a few things off in response to a few other things, but im relatively late on some and for that I apologize. I have formed no peronsal opinion on GH yet, I figure Im biased enough as is towards my own suspect as well all are, so I dont push it further by ruining the posibilities of someone else. Anywho, from what ive read and from what im seeing here, the most consistent question I seem to see about GH is how could he recall so much detail about said suspect. Personally, I am used to the appearnce of the general populace in places I frequent, and where I live, and whenever a person who is totally differently dressed appears, it always comes up in conversation, and I tell other people familiar with the area, "Man, you will never believe how this guy was dressed at the pool hall tonight!" or something along those lines. If you live in an area where anything out of the ordinary is being scrutinized thanks to a multitude of murders, there is a chance GH may have paid that close of attention. Call it small town mentality, but gossip probably ruled the town, its what tends to dominate area of limited income. As i started with I have made no opinion of GH as a witness or as a JtR suspect as of yet, although I do lean towards him being a poor suspect, and a poor witness, I just want to through this out in fairness. Would any of the more studied minds care to evaluate?
Here's looking at you
Ken |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Two obsevations about Hutchinson's testimony.
As he describes events,it is apparent that as the male and Kelly pass Hutchinson outside the 'Queens Head'publick house,Kelly would be between Hutchinson and the male person.In this situation it would be extremely difficlt for Hutchinson to stoop and peer at the male's face without obstructing Kelly,or forcing the pair to move out towards the road.
Secondly,as the male had his arm around Kelly's shoulder, it would have been easy to guide her across the road avoiding any chance of scrutiny by Hutchinson.
If the streets were so busy,why the lack of witnesses. |
Nealec
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Richard,
You rightly note that it was the day of the Lord Mayors Show, however is it likely a prosperous looking gent would be out in his best bib & tucker at 2-3am on a cold, wet night some 7-8 hours before the show? Also seems far-fetched he would have accomodation locally and just popped out for an assignation. Possible, but extremely implausable.
Do we have access to records regarding this show, ie. location , timing, what constituted it. I understand it was to celebrate the inauguration of the new mayor and it could be assumed there was a parade and speeches and some sort of carnival but what exactly occured in Whitechapel. Grateful for any info.
Neale |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:11 pm: | |
Hi all,
I have been studing the ripper case for a short time and I find it confusing at times because of all the conflicting reports. You can watch two documentaris and get two different stories and you can read two different books and get two different versions of the same events leading up to the murders..
Hi Natalie,
I thought that it was Isreal Schwartz who Anderson and Swanson claimed got a good look at the man who attacked Stride 15 minutes befor her body was discoverd. The man who Schwartz identified was a man by the name of Kosminski. Swanson wrote down in the margines of a book that Robert Anderson wrote that Kosminski was the man that Schwartz saw that night attack Stride. I do not believe that Stride was a ripper victim [I can not proove this however] so working on the assumption that she was a ripper victim. We have two possibilities.
1. Shcwartz was mistaken and the women he saw being attacked was not stride but another unfortunate.
2. Schwartz did in fact see stride being attacked. This is important because if you believe Liz Stride was attacked twice in a 15 minutes time frame I would suggest the odds are a bit long on this occuring. Just because she would have been shaken up and probably not to eager to pick up any othe clients. She may have even went to a police man. Stride was scared that she in fact would become a ripper victim and she would have been on serious guard after the first attack.
The most popular theory regarding Stride is that the man who discoverd the body also scared the ripper off and he did not have time to mutilate the body. If you believe that Diemschutz scared the ripper away from Strides body then it is hard to believe that Schwartz saw the ripper because Jack would of had time to mutilate Stride in the 15 minutes that schwartz saw him and Diemschutz arrived. So we have four possibilities.
1. Schwhartz in fact scared the ripper off. After Swhartz saw the ripper attack Stride. Jack made short work of her and fled. witch would have given him 10 extra minutes to find Kathy Eddows.
2. The man that Schwhartz saw was not the ripper and he would of had no interest in mutilateing the body. [Stride not being a ripper victim.]
3. Schwartz did not see the ripper atack Stride at all and diemschutz arrival in fact scared the ripper away. Not giving him time to mutilate the body. Schartz either was mistaken and saw another unfortunate being atacked or Stride was indeed attacked twice in one night.
4. Schwartz was mistaken about the time he saw Stride being attacked.
I have some thoughts on three men if you believe they saw the ripper with Eddowes and there time is correct then you have to believe that the ripper killed Eddowes and mutilated the body in 8 to 10 minutes before P.C Watkines discoverd Eddowes body in Mitre Square. I realise the times witnesses give are not always accurate but the 10 minutes time frame given by the three men would be enough for me to have doubts on there testimony. You have to allow for a minute for the ripper to end the conversation with Eddowes after the three men [Lawende sorry about spelling. I am not sure how to spell his last name] saw him with her and you would have too allow for the time it would take the ripper to walk her over to Miter Square You also would have to allow time for the ripper to make his escape before P.C. Watkines arrives on the scene. The fact that he took the time to mutilate the face and make the cuts under the eyes may suggest he was not in a hurry or at the very least had no sense of impending danger or fear of being caught by Watkins. Is it possible he was just lucky? Yes but is it likely he could have got away with the murder in such a short time frame? I believe it is possible that the three men did not see Eddowes at all and it was just a simple case of mistaken identity or there times were not accurate. I think that this is what Abberline meant when he said false trails were laid. A lot of eye witness reports were mistaken.
George Huctchinson is interesting because Sarah Lewis tends to back up his claim that Kelly was with a man. I am not sure of the exact wording but Lewis claim to see a man across the way who I assume was GH but she also claimed to see a women who was intoxicated talking to a man further down the street. This may well have been Kelly talking to the mystery man. If I was Abberline the fact that GH may have been colaberated by Lewis may have led me to believe that he was telling the truth about seeing Kelly with a man that night and if I believed he saw Kelly with a man I would have know reason to doubt his discription. Remember the ripper murders stoped after the Kelly murder not after the double event so I tend to believe that something Happend that night or shortly after to put the police on to the right man. I do not believe that there is anything suspicious about somebody not wanting to get involved in the ripper murders so I do not think alot should be read into the fact that GH did not come forward right away. Eastenders were the dregs of London and Hutchinson may not have wanted to deal with the police because of his own way of life. It is possible that Geoge may have had something more to do with Kelly but I do not think he would of had anything to do with her murder because he would not have put himself at the crime scene. I doubt that the ripper had gone unnoticed in the streets of WC and he probably was seen by others and the fact that he may have been scene by someone the night Kelly was murderd would not in my oppinion be enough to draw him out. Unless he was seen by someone who knew him and in fact saw him with Kelly we have no testimony that would suggest this about Hutchinson.
All the best,CB
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
Hi CB and All,
First I don"t think Sarah Cox saw Hutchinson at the same time as she saw Mary kelly with this man.
Hutchinson was elsewhere in Commercial Street when they were all within distance of each other.At one point he was at Thrawl Street as the man passed him then he let them pass him as they entered Dorset Street so whoever she saw {S.Cox}
it wasnt Mary and the man Hutchinson had seen her with.
Second CB I have been having a discussion on another thread about the East End.Its not quite the case that the East Enders were the dregs etc.In fact only a small percentage were of the criminal type ,the majority being caught up in a struggle agaist poverty -yes-but the community was just as horrified as everyone else by the murders and did their best to help the police and a large number formed "vigilante Groups"to try to track him down.
The community known as the East End from the 1870"s to the turn of the century was right in the very forefront of the struggle to end sweatshops/unemployment/exploitation of all kinds and has a well deserved place of honour in the labour movement.Several of the very first M.P.s to represent the "Independent Labour Party", which was the fore.runner to the Labour party itself were elected from Whitechapel and its environs.So not only were the people of the East End not the dregs of Society ,they were in fact very important historically to the foundations of the Labour party.
Best Wishes
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi all
It appears to me that somewhere along the line here we're getting a tad off thread..We have the 1)Why did GH delay until Monday?
2)Was the sudden 'visit' brought on by Sarah Lewis's statement?
3)'Hutchinson's man' is surely implausible and for what its worth ..I suspect Abberline agreed! hence his dismissal of GH as a worthy suspect
4)The lurking of GH (wideawake hat notwithstanding !)is still problematical
5)At the end of the day facts is facts is facts chaps and unless something miraculous comes to light that's all we're stuck with like it or not and all the 'romance' and myth that you can come up with in your wildest dreams aint going to clarify the situation!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
G'day,
Were common citizens allowed to attend Mary Kelly's inquest, or were the doors closed to the public? I am wondering if George Hutchinson could have been in the audience, to hear Sarah Lewis's testimony from her mouth.
LEANNE
"Mummy, Mummy, why do I keep going round in circles?"
"Shut up or I'll nail your other foot to the floor!"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
G'day,
Don't worry, I think I just found the answer myself:
The 'Times (London)' of 13 Nov 1888 says: 'The inquiry took place at the Shoreditch Town-hall. Great interest was manifested in the proceedings by the crowds which had assembled both outside and inside the hall.'
If Hutchinson wasn't inside the hall during the inquest, he could have been waiting outside and heard someone talking about what Sarah Lewis said. He could have hesitated in coming forward until 6p.m. that same day!
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hey leanne,that"s really valuable information to know that Hutchinson could have followed the court case himself[a bit unlikely if he WAS the ripper mind to go and listen to the inquest AND then go and say all this to Abberline].Not so unlikely to hear it on the grapevine and make a decision as to whether he felt safe/confident to go forward.
I still have doubts that if he was Jack the Ripper having carried out all those murders and mutilations,the last just a few days previously
he would have chanced it at all with Abberline.You have to ask yourself "Why?"What would such a serial killer have had to gain?Likely as not Abberline had he had the slightest whiff of suspicion would have felt his collar if not kept him in.The Fact is he didnt seem to doubt his word.So either Abberline was a crap detective-which certainly doesn"t match the view of him that has come down to us orHutchinson"s story was believed,checked out as thoroughly as possible by Abberline and his team and found to tally with other information the police had on
a]the ripper
b]Mary"s movements
c]other information the police had about Hutchinson/his usual digs/haunts/his movements that night.
Abberline was known as I have always understood it
for his "under-cover" work in Whitechapel.His prior knowledge of the criminal sector in Whitechapel through actually appearing to become familiar with it and almost part of it-frequenting its dens of iniquity etc etc----its why he was drafted back in to deal with the case.
I cant imagine him suddenly taking leave of his senses ,interviewing the ripper,going around Whitechapel with him,and not suspecting a thing.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Natalie,
A number of serial killers have contacted the police in the past to try to derail the investigation, or to feel clever about how they get away with it, or to learn details of the police progress and adjust their strategy accordingly. I don't know that Hutchinson was the killer, but going to the police to discuss the case in no way rules him out or lessens the odds.
And, as far as Abberline having to be an idiot to not notice it if he were a killer, as I've said a number of times, just because someone misses something it doesn't make them incompetent. They had very little experience with serial killers then and many of them were looking for very specific kinds of people that may not match at all what the Ripper was really like. Many serial killers are quite charming and convincing, and one like that would be especially so in the Ripper case since the investigators were looking for an entirely different kind of person.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi Dan,thanks for your post.I agree that its possible.But what seems likely to me is that any detective hearing that Hutchinson had been hanging outside Mary Kelly"s room at around the time of her murder for quite some time in the cold and rain is going to think it strange just as we do.Unless he told Abberline more than we know.Abberline is at the very least likely to search his digs ,talk to others who knew him and could verify some of his story or things they knew about him.I dont think the police were that sloppy.In fact they seem to have tried to search as much as they could of Spitalfields.After all Abberline must have taken him seriously for some reason and surely if this were so he would also have checked him out as far as he could?
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
Unless someone can find a newspaper that reported Sarah Lewis's testimony before 6p.m. that day, we have to assume that Hutchinson was in or near Shoreditch Town Hall.
Abberline would have thought that anyone just hanging outside Mary's room was suspicious, that's why I think Hutchinson could have confided in Abberline that he was a 'minder' of prostitutes, (a pimp), and Abberline kept a secret for him.
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi,
The inquest was on the monday[12th] according to GH throughout the saturday and sunday he had contemplated going to the police, but was somewhat hesitant in getting involved in such a hue and cry, he had mentioned his sighting to fellow boarders where he lodged, and they urged him to report it, on the sunday he approached a constable, but was dismissed.
so why dont we just accept his account? he simply was urged by the people he told to report the incident to the police, and raised enough courage to make his presence on the monday evening.
Remember he had told this account to his fellow lodgers proberly before meeting the constable on the sunday, that is why he tried to report it then, and this was twenty four hours before the inquest and Sarah Lewis statement at the inquest.
as for Hutchinson being a pimp, that allegation is unfounded, he appears to have been simply a ordinary man ,and not living of the proceeds of prostitutes.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
G'day Rich,
Where did you read this????? About Hutchinson telling his fellow lodgers of his sighting before telling the police???? Please quote your source.
I think that saying Hutchinson was simply an ordinary, extremely observant man, is an unfounded allegation!!!!
No one can be that concerned about someone else's safety, yet fail to assist the police immediately at investigating that person's murder. Hutchinson had to wait until his innocence was threatened.
LEANNE
Q: What's the difference between broccoli and snot?
A: You can get kids to eat broccoli!
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Richard,
The reason why we cant just accept GH's account of him going to the police on Sunday is because it is nonsense. As I have said many times if he had approached a police constable on Sunday it would have been a very simple matter to identify this officer. No where has this officer been identified.
The only source for all these tales about telling lodgers/police officers is GH - as I said before its like Ted Bundy being innocent because Ted Bundy says so.
You are also losing any credibility you might have by refusing to address points that do not fit with your theories. On many occassions now I have asked you to explain why both Anderson and McNaghten dismissed GH as a credible witness. You have simply ignored this point hoping it will go away, and returned to bleating "Why don't we believe GH?"
Well you've been told on many occassions why we don't believe him but you ignore all these valid points and usually revert to banging on about a radio play.
Now I am issuing a challenge. Answer my points about Anderson and McNaghten. No more prevarication, no more bluff and bluster just get typing.
Bob |
Ken Proctor
Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi People, I have just finished watching the movie Gladiator. These guys were a bunch of pussies compared to what is going on here. I don't profess to know a mere fraction of G.H.s involvement therefore i am unable to render an opinion -"yet". Help me out here, come out of your corners,armed with the facts. Supposition is confusing to me!! "Gizmo" |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hi
Going back to the thing about if it looks like a cat etc etc I think that GH proves this point to be wrong..Come on Richard! This Radio prog?!!! am going to get onto the BBC Archive site and do some research here!!
At the end of the day ........I NEED PROOF...this is beginning to turn into MJK's inquest!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
How many police officers were stationed in whitechapel/ aldgate during the height of the Ripper murders, and who would admit to his superiors that he turned away a man who said he had some imformation regarding the millers court affair?.
I would hardly think that Abberline and co, would assemble every officer in the district, so that hutchinson could move amongst them to identify the man responsible.
They were more intrested in obtaining the imformation, then what happened on sunday.
It is irrelevant that your two senior officers disbelieved Hutchinson, Abberline did. ' I tend to believe the man' signifies that.
And he was the one that came into contact with the said gentleman.
I was trying to make a point that if Hutchinson was telling the truth.... and he did approach the phantom copper on the sunday, then he would not have known that mrs Lewis was going to mention seeing a man standing outside Crossinghams lodgings at the inquest some twenty four hours later, which would then dismiss the claims that he was a paronoid killer, who was frightened into his monday night visit to the police.
Suzi,
I am truely amazed that [ albeit i go back a long way] nobody on this website heard that radio broadcast 1972-1974, if one had, then one may believe that Hutchinson was no more than a genuine witness who tried to assist the police, although i do not fully believe that his issued statement was one hundred per cent released in accurate detail, for surely the police wanted to catch this man, not give a true likeness so he could go to ground or alter his appearence.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 3:40 am: | |
G'day Rich,
You haven't answered my question yet, about your source for the information that Hutchinson 'was urged by the people he told to report to the police'. Did his son say that on the radio broadcast too? How come none of these fellow lodgers came forward to verify what Hutchinson said he saw, at the time?
LEANNE
Q: What's the difference between broccoli and snot?
A: You CAN'T get kids to eat broccoli!
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
Richard
Once again you are ignoring facts and trying to confuse the matter by talking about GH trying to identify the officer.
Because the police officers at the time walked a set beat all he would have to do is to tell the police where and when he approached this officer and he would be identified. No need to parade all the many officers etc.
I am amazed that you dismiss the opinions of two senior police officers so lightly. Where do you think they got the information on which to base their opinions? Probably from Abberline himself.
Dont forget in later years Abberline himself did not mention GH as being a credible witness. Dont you think that if he did believe that he would have mentioned that to the reporter who interviewed him for I believe the Pall Mall gazette?
You say:
"I was trying to make a point that if Hutchinson was telling the truth"
But you are not trying to make that point. You are insisting that it is a fact, and that we should accept it because you say so.
If you simply said "This is what I believe GH said and I think we should consider this" I would have no argument with that, but you are saying is that this is a fact - no argument.
Its almost as bad as the grave spitting incident.
Bob
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:49 am: | |
Referring to the change of description. I believe the reason GH got in a tangle with the facial descriptions of the man is simple.
If you look at GH's description of the man it strikes me it is totally theatrical. I believe that what he was describing was a tailors dummy. Look at the clothes etc. Here we have a man on a cold wet night with a lovely warm coat which for some reason he keeps open to the elements to display his waistcoat and watch.
Now imagine a tailors dummy dressed to show what the man about town is wearing, everything would be exactly as GH described. So the description of the clothing is based on fact and is something that GH can recall. The facial details however are a construction. It is very noticeable that the only details that are changed are those features - why? because not being based on fact GH has, like most people who lie, trouble in recalling what he invented.
If the differences can be put down to bad and inaccurate reporting, its strange that they didn't make similar errors over the clothing.
Bob |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 319
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I fully agree that the constable who allegedly didn’t take GH’s account seriously wouldn’t want to admit this to his superiors. However, I think it’s very hard to swallow that, at this stage of the Ripper case, this constable would have turned away any possible witness. I think the police were forced to take many, if not all, such accounts and letters seriously and subsequently, I would think that Abberline would have done nothing but his very best to try and find this alledged constable, which I don’t think would have been as difficult as you suggest. Like Bob said, constables walked fixed beats at fixed times of the day and I’m sure there were police officers responsible for the planning of the beats, who could have found any constable working a certain beat at any specific time.
Furthermore, if GH was innocent (of whatever vice or crime) and had actually talked to a constable on Sunday, at least GH would surely have been eager to have this constable found, so that this constable could corroborate his account. Yet, in his official police statement GH didn’t mention anything about this constable to Inspector Abberline.
Take care,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Frank wrote:
"Furthermore, if GH was innocent (of whatever vice or crime) and had actually talked to a constable on Sunday, at least GH would surely have been eager to have this constable found, so that this constable could corroborate his account. Yet, in his official police statement GH didn’t mention anything about this constable to Inspector Abberline."
Exactly, Frank. I totally agree.
We can't know what Hutchinson's real role was in the Kelly drama, but I think he seems dubious, to say the least.
He gives a description of a man that extremely detailed -- OK, if we are to believe his testimony he seems to have had a good look at the individual, but such detailed accounts are quite uncommon. Furthermore, the man described feels rather out of place in East End. As far as I know, his apparence doesen't really fit that many other witness accounts.
We also know that Hutchinson most certainly was seen in Miller's Court, and that he learnt this in some way, and therefore had to come forward in order not to get incriminated himself. What he really was doing in Miller's Court we will never know, but I think it's fair to assume that relevant parts of his testimony are a total fabrication.
I must say I find it very hard to see him as the "helpful citizen"; my personal interpretation of him is a somewhat dubious character, if not actually a crook, who came forward in order to save his own skin. But that's just speculations on my part, of course.
But if Hutchinson is a credible witness, I am Donald Duck.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Well said sir!!!My suspicions are that George was equally as dubious and dodgy as the rest of the cast of Dorset Street! Nobody in that area at the time, I would have imagined, would have willingly helped out the Boys in Blue, then as now there is a deep rooted antipathy to the Old Bill.....maybe though as George obviously felt that maybe he'd been rumbled by Sarah Lewis's comments at the inquest it was enough to prompt his appearance at Abberline's desk!
The ridiculous description of 'the man' however smacks of George really using his fevered imagination to bolster his case and appear in the eyes of the police an honest and upright citizen....An attempt that appears not to have fooled the redoubtable Abberline a bit!
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Hi Suzi.
Well said, Madam! 
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Al the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh I dont know!!!!!
Will give you time!!!!! he he!!!
Come on chaps Gloves off Thought we may.........just may have been getting somewhere there!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Bob
Just read back over yr last post....The point about the coat being 'open' is beyond belief!!!! Seems like the most effective means of suicide I can imagine strolling into Dorset St at that time of night (or at any time! ) flashing off the nickables!!!!!!!!! Shows that GH must have been a tad daft not to realise this!!!Am sure that the price for popping ANYTHING that the 'man' was wearing was enough surely to avoid another trip to 'Romford'!!!!!(Spats notwithstanding! )
Cheers
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 320
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Hi there Glenn,
You wrote: “As far as I know, his apparence doesen't really fit that many other witness accounts.”
I think I wrote this some time ago, but to me it seems as if GH took several bits and pieces from other descriptions of the alleged killer and completed his description with each and every detail that he gave to make it sound out of place and suspicious. If so, perhaps he added the bits and pieces from descriptions from others to make it sound more credible.
The foreigner bit may have been from Mrs. Long’s description and from the talk on the street that was probably there, the respectable appearance may have been from P.C. Smith and James Blenkinsop, the parcel GH’s man was carrying may also have been taken from P.C. Smith’s description, and the red handkerchief may have been based on the reddish neckerchief from Joseph Lawende. The height and age GH gave seem to average the heights and ages given by all of the other known witnesses.
Anyway, I couldn’t agree with you more, Glenn. Hutchinson was hiding something. What that was, I don’t know. Could have been all sorts of things.
Take care,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi there Frank,
Regarding the "bits and pieces" thing:
could be, Frank. Quite possible. I have thought along the same lines myself, actually.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi!
Righht I think we're sort of working along the same lines here!
The trouble is with GH is that he wasn't noticable at all, I reckon he was the man who could disappear......AKA.. become invisible in Whitechapel..ok !! Whats the best way to
disappear?? doing things like harnessing their horses!"That way as today just 'fiddling around wih their cabs.'....nothing changes!
Maybe George was just one of those people who 'disappaer' eh?
hmmmmmmmm met a few in my life!
well?
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2870
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi all
There seems to me to be two main paths out of this mess :
1. Bob Hinton's idea - Abberline didn't really believe GH's story, but pretended that he did to buy time, keeping quiet about his suspicions lest they find their way into the newspapers.
2. Abberline did believe GH's story - with all its implausibilities - because his description tallied with a description given by a second witness. Some Press reports do mention another sighting of apparently the same man. I doubt if the witness was Cox, and Lewis's man seems to have been encountered too late to be GH's. Maybe someone else made a statement that's since been lost to us?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Praps a spell check would be a good idea when you're a tad jet lagged!!!!
Sorry chaps!!!!
Suzi
|
Ken Proctor
Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Suzi, Get it right it is "aye" not "eh". "your welcome" Maybe if you had some "clamato juice" it might jog your memory. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Hi all
Frank-I agree there is just something 'wrong' with GH and the whole story,even the Abberline angle on it is suspicious..
Robert-
As usual the voice of reason!
Ken
Cheers mate!
Suzi
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for takeing the time to answer my post. I have been reading your conversation with Glenn on another thread and I knew you were not going to let me slide on my choice of the word dregs. The word dreg may have been to harsh. I did not mean that everyone in the eastend was a criminal or a person of bad charactor. I was trying to point out that for the most part they were impovished and down trotted. there day to day live was a struggle. I am sure that most were honest people who were just trying to do the best they could to survive. Some crimes could have been commited out of desperation. However they were London's poor brothers. I am sure they had a great deal to do with the labour movement. since they were the ones being exploited. There is a saying that in every revolution there is a man with a vision[ James T Kirk ] and I am sure that there were people in the eastend who fought for the things that you have suggested and men who had political ambition some who even exploited the ripper crimes in order to try and rise in political stature but for the most part the people of the eastend were just trying to survive. They were happy to have the three basic things needed to support live food,shelter and water. 50% of all the children did not live to see age five Such conditions often bring criminal activity. The east end was known as the evil quarter mile. Crime was an everyday occurance Inspector Dew claimed there were places in the eastend that even the police were scard to go alone. You mention the vigilante groups that were formed. They were formed because the people of the eastend thought that no one cared about them and that the police were not doing a good enough job to get things done and also because the ripper murders were awfull! When I used the word dreg by no means was I infering that the people of the eastend did not care about the slaughter of the women that lived in the area. They thought that nobody else cared. I believe that the people of the eastend had a distrust of the police. Because of personal expiriences or stories they may have heard and that is why GH may not have come forward. People can romantisise the victorian period but you can not romantisise the eastend. Scocial change occured because of the few who fought for the rights of the many. Perhapes in some bizzare way the ripper murders helped bring about such change because the murders did bring attention to the conditions of the eastend. You know perhapes my insensitive remark refering to the people of the eastend as dregs was wrong but it probably was how most people who lived in London thought about the eastend and how most people of the eastend thought that the people of London thought about them. This probably led to great mistrust by the people of the eastend twards the police and any other people in a position of power
I have posted my oppinion that Sarah lewis may have brought some credibility to GH claim before and you are the first person to ever point out my probable mistake Thanks. I have some thoughts on this but I have to read a little more I will get back to you.
Your friend,CB |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
Normally a person does not simply turn up out of the blue and ask to give evidence while the inquest is being held.
Such persons are already known to have information that has a bearing on the case,and are summoned to attend the inquest.
It is very likely that Lewis had contacted the police soon after Kelly's murder was known to have happened,and they arranged for her to give evidence at the inquest.
Although she only gave a brief description of the person outside Crossingham's,nowhere was it reported she could not identify that person.
Hutchinson had two choices.Come forward and brazen it out,or keep mum,a dangerous thing to do if eventually found to be the person at Crossinghams.
Just one more item on his statement.Kelly and the companion were said to have lingered at the entrance to Miller's court for about three minutes,during which time a red handkerchief was given to Kelly.Now three minutes may not seem long,but if one places a timepiece on a table and watches while three minutes pass,one can get a good perception of how long three minutes are.
Why stand in the cold and damp when the destination both required was just twenty or so feet away.
Of course a red handkerchief was also reported to have been in the possession of the person speaking to Eddowes.It neatly ties both together.
Disregard any notion of what you imagine Hutchinson was as a person.Concentrate on what he said. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
