|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:24 am: |       |
Hi Suzi,I know exactly what you mean about the area of Whitechapel George lived in not being known for being helpful to the police.OK but Abberline had a reputation for being one of the most liked and trusted by same.
Myselfi believe the police did a fairly thorough job for the time ,searching houses,arresting those they suspected in any way,chatting up local people etc.I think they also had the benefit of descriptions on people just as Robert says-and which may no longer be available.
Its true that GH"s description sounds over the top
but top-hatted toffs were reknowned for circling St Bottolphs Church in cabs.I can quite picture some of them-inappropriately dressed for such a rough area but too drunk to care going for a Friday Night "slumming spree" to find "a bit of rough".Yes-I can believe Hutchinson"s account. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Nats,
Ive never really bought this residents of Whitechapel being anti rosser.
The majority were good, honest hard working citizens to whom Jack was a right royal bloody pain in the harris.
He affected businesses and caused suspicion between friends, neighbours and relatives.
Sure, some local criminal elements would have been reluctant help but I bet Jacks doings plagued them and their business also.
My view, for what its worth.
Lewis put George at the scene (or near as damn it) of Kellys murder on the night the police felt she was murdered.
George panics.
George figures he should visit Abberline before Abberline issues a full search in a kinda Leather apron scenario.
This enables George to get in with a story before the police press him for a story.
This theory presents a problem mentioned by Caz some months back.
Focus of attention is now turned on to George and its all is own doing. Why? In the polices eyes this would indicate the George is good honest lad or George is lying because has something to hide.
If the latter it begs the question what the hell is it thats so important for George to keep secret he has to implicate himself and lie in a murder enquiry?
What is worth that ??
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hi Monts!
I agree that Georgie boy would more than likely have kept ssshthum (sp!) if the Lewis floozie hadn't fingered him at the inquest!
Cant help but get out of the thought that Gh HAD A DEAL OF HISTORY WITH MAYBE NOT JUST MJK.............BUT MAYBE THE OTHER GIRLS TOO IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
(Oops sorry about caps there! )
Love the idea of the polce PRESSING GH or Abberline for a comment....hmmmmmmmmmmm maybe GH was such a well known character in the area that even the remotest 'hint' in the area would have frightened him off ! The fact that Abberline was a 'well respected man' may have been cause enough!
Cheers
Suzi
Suzi
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Maybe GH recognized the man he saw with Kelly.
He needs to come forward to clear himself of suspicion.
He's deathly afraid to tell the truth about who he saw,though, so he makes up a description so that the Rip won't think that GH is dangerous to him.
I agree, I don't buy GH's story at all.
Mags |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
I believe that Abbeerline dismissed Hutchinsons discription because of the statements he made in the papers when he said that no one got a good look at the killer. He might have thought that there was something to it at the time but by 1903 he clearly must of had some doubts about Hutchinsons discription. I think that the fact that George went into such great detail in his discription makes it more plauseable that the man did exist weather or not he is the ripper because George did not have to give such a detailed discription of the man he saw. I think that it would be easier for a man who is lieing to give a simple description.
I do not think that GH would have came forward and made up a story because Lewis puts him at the scene The only man Lewis discribes in detail is the man she saw talking to a woman outside the pub. and I do not believe that man to be George. The discription she gives of the second man in my oppinion is very gernaric and could match alot of men in the eastend. I do not believe that the discription would have scared George and made him come forward if he was the ripper. George could have been reluctant to come forward out of fear that he would become a suspect. The fact that he came forward at all in my oppinion gives some credibility to his story. It is just possible that the man that george saw was just a custumer and not the ripper. There is alot of time between 2:00am and 3:45AM Kelly may of had time to go out and find another client that morning.
All the best,CB |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Harry,
But why come forward and brazen it out if all he did was to stand in Dorset street?
Maybe thats not all he did and the fact that Lewis saw someone standing in the same spot at the same time George was there may have triggered a 'well what else did they see' thought in Hutchinsons head.
I cannot think he was doing it out of concern else he would have voluntarly come forward the next day and claim the Spitalfields Good citizen award.
Normally a person does not simply turn up out of the blue and ask to give evidence while the inquest is being held.
Although she only gave a brief description of the person outside Crossingham's,nowhere was it reported she could not identify that person.
Bang on with both of these statements mate.
I think we may have a winner on the why George did come forward. Neck saving.....but saving from what ?
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 417
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hello all,
Sorry to poke in here like this, but something occurred to me while reading through this thread . . . most of us seem to take issue with Hutch saying the gentleman he saw was wearing his coat open and prominently displaying a horseshoe pin, thinking that this was unlikely in Whitechapel at the time . . . but is it possible our idea of Whitechapel is worse than the place truly was?
The only reason I ask is that to the best of my knowledge most of what we now know about Whitechapel was written by religious reformers who saw Whitechapel as only slightly more reputable than Soddom.
The police must have had a good idea of what Whitechapel was like, as would Hutch. Would he make such a statement if he thought it was very very unlikely? Maybe.
Would the police know whether this practice was unlikely or not? Absolutely.
So maybe more people walked around Whitechapel flashing jewels than we believe.
Ok, sorry to have gone sort of off topic there for a bit.
Proceed with the verbal beatings!
-K |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Kris,
Sure, they hardly tell the whole story, but one suggestion could be looking at photos from the area during that period of time.
So written accounts is not all we have.
I would assume, without displaying any further prejudice about East End, that the poverty in some of the streets -- like Dorset Street -- was far worse than we can ever imagine in our heads, while some streets may have been more respectable.
Looking at the photos and taking the social conditions into account, with a great number of doss houses, I would say a well dressed bloke with a thick gold chain, would be out of place and maybe also find himself in a rather difficult situation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi Kris and Glenn-
Despite our wildest imaginings ...I think that Dorset St was probably a hell (!) of a lot worse than we can imagine!...Keeping body and soul (and probably mind) together was probably a day to day necessity!(one often lost ..as in Annie! )
As to our man with the chain,the pin and the wonderful astrakan coat etc etc..of course 'slumming' was a common practice amongst the 'nobs' of the day so maybe in their excitement(!) to see the flesh pots of Whitechapel they somehow forgot to change their 'posh' outer garments and so attracted the attention of our George! ( for whatever reason! )
Musings...
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 2:31 am: | |
G'day,
George Hutchinson DID NOT 'turn up out of the blue and ask to give evidence while the inquest was being held.'
He waited until the inquest had closed! I don't know how exactly how long he waited, because I don't know the exact time that the Coroner gave his concluding comments. All I know for sure is that Hutchinson approached the police at 6p.m.
Sarah Lewis was likely interviewed by the police while they were doing their interrogations of the Millers Court residents, shortly after the discovery of the body.
HARRY: How many men in London's East End at the time owned a red handkerchief? Probably about as many that owned a wide-awake hat!
If Hutchinson had any really sinister motives to be at Crossingham's that morning, (like murder), I think he would have tried a little bit harder not to be noticed.
LEANNE
"A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished!" - Zsa Zsa Gabor
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
G'day Kris,
A Victorian London Website that I frequent shows a story that was written for 'Harper's New Monthly' Magazine in January 1894, which was 6 years after the murders. Of the East End of London it says: 'There are no such faces to be seen anywhere else in the world, no such despair nor misery nor ignorance. They are brutal, sullen, and gladless. A number of these men together make you feel an uneasyness concerning your safety which is not the fear of a fellow man, such as you might confess to if you met any men alone in a dark place, but such as you feel in the presence of an animal...'
The writer then writes about McCarthy's lodging-house on Dorset street, and I don't feel this is suitable for a Board about George Hutchinson so I may have to start a new one!
LEANNE
Marriage is a three-ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffer-ring!"
- Anonymous
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
LEANNE,
If I remember correctly, Harrys post (where the hell has it gone?) NEVER stated that George turned up outta the blue at the inquest.
As you say, He waited until after the inquest to come forward.
I wonder why? I wonder what was said at that inquest that made him come forward??
Besides, what I think Harry was getting at, his point, is that you are summonded to attend inquests and not just turn up.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:51 am: | |
G'day Monty,
Harry's post is now in 'Archive through August 25'.
As no one has produced a newspaper report detailing Sarah Lewis's testimony that appeared on the same day as the inquest, I figured he was either there inside the hall when she gave it or was waiting outside in the crowds and was told, or overheard someone talking about it straight after the inquest.
LEANNE
"Outside a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read."
-Groucho Marx.
|
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place for this...
The number of posts and the degree of ignorance my question raises, should indicate how little I know and how far I have to go.
I am having a hard time finding a psychical description of George Hutchinson. I have read what Sarah Lewis said in her testimony, but other than George offering up confirmation that he was in the general vicinity, how do the two tie together.
Is Sarah's description accurate in relation to GH's actual appearance?
**Angel**
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2082
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Angel,
It is practically impossible to know what GH looked like since we have no photo of him; as far as I know I haven't really seen a good description of him whatsoever. (Maybe Bob Hinton knows something about this?)
As I see it, there would be no reason for GH to admit that he was in the vicinity if he hadn't actually been there (considering it was in the vicinity of the scene of the crime) and if he hadn't found out that he had been spotted.
Therefore it is my belief that it was GH that Sarah Lewis saw. Why on Earth would he otherwise take such a risk and place himself at the scene of the crime?
Regardless of how this information about his whereabouts there may have come to his knowledge, my bet is that he realised that he had no other choice, since he maybe wasn't sure of how much Sarah Lewis really saw or how much the police knew. He probably paniced.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 321
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Hi CB,
You wrote: “I think that the fact that George went into such great detail in his discription makes it more plauseable that the man did exist weather or not he is the ripper because George did not have to give such a detailed discription of the man he saw. I think that it would be easier for a man who is lieing to give a simple description.”
The fact that GH did give such a detailed description while he didn’t have to is exactly one of the things that make his account suspicious.
What clearly stands out to me is that GH put very little effort into the explanation for following the couple and his subsequent 45 minute vigil, whereas he put unevenly much effort into the description he gave of MJK’s punter. By giving his overly detailed description, to me it seems as though GH’s goal wasn’t simply to clear himself from suspicion, his goal seems to go a step further and seems to have been to get the police to focus their attention on somebody else. I think that’s the reason why George went into such great detail in his description.
I don’t think George would have been able to see all the details that he described in poorly lit Commercial Street, not even during the brief moment the couple passed him while he was standing against the lamp of the Queen’s Head pub, because I don’t expect this light to have been bright. Like someone recently pointed out, according to GH’s own police statement, MJK’s client would have been walking on the street side with Mary on his right, meaning that Mary was positioned between her client and George, making it a little awkward for George to stoop down and get a good look of the man’s face and all the rest of him.
Of course, all of this doesn’t mean that GH was MJK’s killer or Jack the Ripper, to me it simply means that he was hiding something.
Take care,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi Monty,thanks for your post which I"ve only just seen as I was away.Anyway I agree with all you suggest.I also think he may have been scared for himself being suspected of being the ripper.I know I would have been.Its also possible Mary would have given him shelter once the man had gone
and maybe given him sixpence or a shilling to get by on----like he says he had given her in the past to help her out.
Infact this is partly why I think its important to get it straight over just what the East End was like.It was common for people to help each other out in the East End,I think of the woman witness who borrowed plates and was returning them.The other woman who wanted to borrow Mary"s shawl and couldnt get an answer and there are numbers of such records about the East End,There legendary-especially apparently during the two world wars,the Depression etc.In those days just the records of the generosity of the East Enders to the Dockers Strike Fund of 1889 is an example[I was interested too to read that Australia gave £30,ooo in 1889 to the Dockers to help with the fund and hardship!].So by and large East Enders tried there best to help each other and during the ripper scare at least they tried to help the police too.In fact they seem to have been pretty devastated by the murders.
Nats |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 322
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Spot on post, Monty! (August 26, 2004 - 12:00 pm)
Cheers,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,I note your compatriots of 1889 didnt have such a dim view of the East End as your "Harpers" source-since they donated £30,000 to their poor/strike fund quite generously[the Australians did not Harpers!].
If I can quote the famous Mandy Rice Davies regarding the fiendish view your writer at Harperss held of East Enders ---"he would say that wouldn"t he?"----because Leanne you would still be hard pressed to find a more elitist,class conscious monthly than "Harpers" I can tell you.
As I write I can think of a number of people of that type who wrote disparagingly about the poor in Victorian times and more recently like or example DH Lawrence has Lady Chatterly describe the workforce on her husbands estate as "just pigs-worse than animals etc[didnt stop her enjoying the services of his gamekeeper though when she got hooked on the "rougher side of life".
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi Kris,just seen your post.Maybe they did.Myself I have often thought that if the man with kid gloves was the ripper he might well have "dressed to impress" in order to be sure of the best deal ie to be sure he could get back to the room
of the prostitute.Who knows maybe he "dressed down" for the others because he contented himself with the streets up till then and decided to get done up to secure someone with a room to go back to for the murder of Mary Kelly.
Nats |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 323
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi Kris,
You wrote: “. . . most of us seem to take issue with Hutch saying the gentleman he saw was wearing his coat open and prominently displaying a horseshoe pin, thinking that this was unlikely in Whitechapel at the time . . . but is it possible our idea of Whitechapel is worse than the place truly was?…
The police must have had a good idea of what Whitechapel was like, as would Hutch. Would he make such a statement if he thought it was very very unlikely? Maybe.”
For what it’s worth, the very reason why Hutchinson’s attention was drawn to Mary’s client seems to have been that such a well dressed man looked out of place there. (newspapers: “My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed,...” Abberline: “Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them.”)
Take care,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Hi cb I"ve covered a lot of what I wanted to say on this so far but I take your points.There are several possibilities here obviously including that Hutchinson could have been telling the truth.
Nats. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2084
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Natalie,
"There are several possibilities here obviously including that Hutchinson could have been telling the truth."
Yes, that is of course possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. There are quite many things that suggests that he didn't -- at least not all the way.
CB,
You wrote:
"I think that the fact that George went into such great detail in his discription makes it more plauseable that the man did exist weather or not he is the ripper because George did not have to give such a detailed discription of the man he saw. I think that it would be easier for a man who is lieing to give a simple description."
I have to agree with Frank here. It is actually the other way around; a very detailed description is generally an indication of that it is more or less fabricated.
Most commonly, witness descriptions are rather vague and not detailed at all.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2878
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Re the thick gold chain and the tiepin, Chris George suggested these may have been gimcrack jewellery (I believe Diemschutz sold this sort of stuff). Still, I don't understand why this man would walk into Dorset St with jewellery, fake or real - the muggers wouldn't find out the truth before they'd beaten him up.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 324
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Angel,
How’s it going, Down Under? Here in tiny, flat ol’ Holland it’s wet and windy!
Regarding Hutchinson’s appearance, I remember reading somewhere that a newspaper said he was a man of military bearing, which would make him - combined with Sarah Lewis’ description - not tall, stout, of military appearance and in possession of a wideawake hat. I don't believe there are other descriptions of George, or at least, I haven't come across any other.
You wrote: “I have read what Sarah Lewis said in her testimony, but other than George offering up confirmation that he was in the general vicinity, how do the two tie together.”
At the inquest Sarah Lewis deposed that at about 2:30 a.m. she saw a man opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court who was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Although George didn’t say anywhere that he was the man seen by Lewis, he corroborated her account to every detail: between 2 and 3 in the morning, just outside of Miller’s Court, he was waiting for someone to come out. So, he wasn’t simply in the general vicinity of where Lewis saw this man, he was probably exactly where Lewis said she saw the man with the wideawake hat.
This combined with what Glenn wrote earlier makes me believe as well that it was actually George Hutchinson that Lewis saw.
Take care,
Frank
|
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Hi Glen, Frank, et al.
Thanks for your replys and the information - living on the other side and bottom half of the world, makes for a long delay between when I post and get responses.
Just trying to fill in the gaps. Sorting primary, secondary and speculative evidence in my own mind.
From what's been said, if I understand correctly, there appears to be no direct evidence that George Hutchinson was the person seen by Sarah Lewis.
Granted, GH's admission that he was there does strengthen the conclusion that it was him Sarah Lewis saw. Her comment "looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out," seems pure speculation, though - it implies insight to motive. How does one differentiate between staring off into space in that direction and specifically looking in that direction?
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 326
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi Angel,
If I’m too nitpicky, just say so - Lewis’ comment may indeed seem pure speculation, but if it really was Hutchinson she saw, she judged what she saw very well, ‘cause Hutchinson was waiting for someone to come out.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2094
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Totally in agreement again, Frank.
This is just the crucial point of it. No matter who Lewis thought she saw, Hutchinson himself did confirm that he was there -- why would do that (and himself in such a delicate position on the crime scene) if he wasn't.
So whether or not Sarah Lewis identified GH or not, he admitted to himself being there.
Then, why he was there is another mystery, of course, and whether or not he told the truth about this.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Too nitpicky? Not at all. I've been accused of such, no doubt a justified accusation. I posted elsewhere that the devil is in the details, and it's the devil I want to know.
I thank you and Glen for the information. It's the little things that get me thinking and annoy me - like the one missing piece of a 10,0000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Sure I can see the picture and I have to get real close to notice a bit is missing. But the point is, I know it's missing and I'm stubborn, some say bloody minded (can I say that), but I have to keep looking till I find that piece.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2096
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:45 am: | |
Problem is, Angel, that although being careful to details is important in police work (or solving mysteries in general), there are a lot of pieces missing in such old cases like this -- too many. You will never find all missing pieces in this jigsaw, simply because so many are missing.
The only thing we can do, is the consider the facts at hand and do our interpretations of them.
There is not one piece missing here, but probably hundreds of them. Even getting an over-all picture is difficult.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and all
Right.. let's start by stripping things down to the facts!
Ok..following the inquest Sarah Lewis OBVIOUSLY saw SOMEONE
'lurking' within or without Millers Court and cared enough about this to comment at the inquest...along with the comments from Mrs Prater and Mary Ann Cox. The fact that Caroline M 'saw' Mary could open another (or maybe the same) can of worms is irrelevant!
At the end of the day what few FACTS we have are FACTS.. so maybe this is a safe place to start....unlike Dorset St!
Mind you lets not forget that our Mrs Lewis had had the breeze put up her a short while earlier in Commercial St before scuttling off to Millers Ct in the early hrs..If she thought that the man she had seen earlier was still maybe following her she would have seen 'someone' in the shadows as she made for the Keylers for the night! George may ,or may not have fitted that description,but I find it SO hard to believe that he was the only 'lurker' in THAT street at THAT time!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 265
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
If we assume that George Hutchinson was lying about the witness description and the trying but failing to talk to a policeman on a beat later, why do we assume that he was telling the truth about:
1) Having known Mary Jane Kelly
2) Having even been there that night
3) Anything else for that matter
I'm not sure how people are making their decisions on judging what, if anything, can be believed from his testimony.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2098
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
As far as I am concerned, 1) and 3) are unsure indeed. We simply can't know or assume that he did.
Point 2) is easier as I see it. As has been said before, why on Earth would he take the risk of deliberately place himself on the scene of the crime, admitting him being there that very night, if he didn't have a valid reason to do so (whatever that reason was, but probably because he knew he had been seen and that would put him in an incriminating position)?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 266
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Why on earth would he say he was there if he wasn't? To angle for a reward, to see himself in the paper, because he was trying to get someone he didn't like in trouble by giving his description at the crime scene, because he's not very bright, because he had known Mary Jane and saw her with someone else suspicious acting some other time but wanted to place the guy at the scene so the police would take it more seriously, because he knew the guy that was seen and wanted to get the police off his track, or any number of other possible reasons.
A number of reported witnesses had talked about what they saw at other crime scenes and weren't suspected as the killer (I mean, have we ever heard of Schwartz, Lawende, Cadosch, Long or any of them being suspected at the time? The only one I can think of is the boot leather guy, and he apparently wasn't suspected very strongly) so he wouldn't necessarily even consider that placing himself at the scene would make him a suspect.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2100
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
That is true, but here we are talking about a man that was seen by someone else, hanging outside Miller's Court the same night of the murder. I would say there is a difference of circumstances.
I would say, that assuming he himself came forward about him being there because he felt incriminated thanks to Lewis' testimony -- and at the same time making himself look better in the eyes of the police -- is a rather logical conclusion.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Just a thought - and again it's relative to height and height is relative to the observer.
Sarah Lewis described the man she saw as "...a stout looking man, and not very tall."
GH described the man he saw with MJK as being about 5'6" tall. He said that when MJK and the man passed him outside the Queen's Head Public House the man hung his head down. GH stated that he stooped down and looked him in the face.
If GH was "not very tall" then it would not be necessary for him to stoop, or if he did stoop it would have been very little. (I tried a little experiment with my partner in relation to this.)
However, and it's pure speculation, if GH was of a similar height to the man with MJK then the stooping would definitely have been necessary.
Studies relating to the accuracy of witness testimony from crime scenes indicate that when the witness is of similar height to the suspect, the witness is more likely to give a reasonably accurate description, at least, height wise. This has been mentioned on this board as well.
If one considers the possibility that GH and the man he described were of similar height, this would cast some doubt that the person that Sarah Lewis saw was George Hutchinson unless she was a giant.
Just a though.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I do not like to speculate to much but I do believe that GH was the man that Lewis saw because he would have been in position by 2:30 by his own admission. and I feel the intoxicated woman she saw further down was in fact Kelly. I dont believe that we can read to much into GH Late testimony The fact he came forward at all is enough to make me believe tht there is some truth in his story. the fact that he was seen on the street would not have been enough to scare him into comeing forward especially if he was the ripper. Anything short of catching the man in the act of commiting the murders would mean that there would not be enough evidence to convict him. The fact that he was seen in the street would have been circumstantial.
After reading the inquest I have this thought that has stuck in my mind and it probably is a little off base but there are similarities in the descriptions given by Hutchinson,Lewende and Lewis. The man that lewis claimed approached her and a friend on wensday and she claimed to see the same man outside Ringers public house talking to a woman friday morning around 2:30AM had on a pair of salt and pepper trousers the man that Lewende saw also had on a pair of salt and pepper trousers. The man that Lewende saw with Eddowes had a red neckerchief same as the man that Huctchinson saw with Kelly all three described the man as being fair to pale complexion and haveing a small mustache. I realise that the discriptions are not dead bang and there are diffrences. Lewis never claimed to see a nekerchief and the man she saw did not have a coat on but witnesses often have different discriptions of the same man and there are enough similarities to peak my couriosity. I wonder if Sarah Lewis was the rippers intended victim that night and followed her into the area and he just happend to run into Kelly.
I have another thought and it concerns GH. You refer to neck saving as a reason Hutchinson came forward. His description of the man he saw with Kelly is quite accurate and I have posted before if he was going to make up the story I dont believe his description would have been so accurate. What if he was working the street with Kelly and he in fact set Kelly up with the man he described. He would have got a good look at him because he would of had a conversation with him. Maybe he would not be so eager to come forward and admitt that he was directly involved with setting Kelly up with this man.
Both scenarios are out there but we know something for sure. The murders stoped after november 9th 1888. Something happend to make the ripper stop. either he was scared and fled or he was questioned by the police got scared and fled. Maybe he commited suicide. something happend to him and wharever it was made him stop. We dont have much but we have descriptions given by the three witnesses Hutchinson,Cox,and Lewis that night or maybe some bit of information that we have not discoverd but something happend.
Take care,CB |
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
As a seasoned inspector, Abberline likely had a pretty reliable truth-o-meter of a brain. His instincts had served him well. He believed Hutchinson's story. Based on that, I find it hard to dispute the man's opinion- especially over 100 years removed. He sat with Hutchinson, he looked him in the eye, he picked his brain.
steve tavani (Solitary Vices- advanced) |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Monty,
You are quite correct in your post of 27/8,and I believe,if read properly,it referred to Lewis's appearance at the inquest and not Hutchinson.
Frank it was I who pointed out the relative position of Kelly and companion as they passed Hutchinson.
One can isolate the several different elements that make up Hutchinson's statement,and each if studied closely,bears no relation to what I would term normal activity,taking into consideration the time,the people , the conditions and the actions of the people involved.
Now here's one more consideration that has to be studied.What of the midnight visitor to Kelly's room.He of course is totally excluded and forgotten once Hutchinson introduces the twoA.M.companion.There is one curious important item about this person though.It is not known when he departed Kelly's room.
Now if Hutchinson is fabricating a tale,an important part being Kelly and Companion entering her room at about 2 A,M,he either has to know the midnight visitor had left,or he takes an an unbelievable risk.That is that this midnight visitor could or had already contacted the police and they had a time of departure,and it was after two A.M.
So how would he know that it was safe to put a time of two A.M..Simple.He had either been monitoring Kelly's movements that night,and saw the person leave,or he had himself been the midnight companion. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
Leanne,
I was refering to Lewis and her appearance at the inquest.I know George did not turn up untill the evening after the inquest.
The fact that red handkerchiefs may have been common,in no way distracts from the linking of the last reported persons seen in the company of Eddowes and Kelly having such an item.
Red neckerchiefs were also a common item,and for a special reason.Perhaps you can guess the reason.There were many Victorian traditions now discontinued that were signalled by items of everyday use.One such was the placing of a chair before the front gate or door,with a white towel draped over the back of the chair.Not displayed nationally,it was a sign to all who passed.My mother displayed it at certain times of the year.
Nothing to do with the murders I know,but it signifies how little is known of the Victorian era.
As to HUtchinson taking more care not to be seen,it appears only one person did see him,despite his claim of being at Crossinghams for about forty five minutes,and then wandering the streets.If Lewis had not appeared when she did,I doubt the name Hutchinson would ever have been connected to the murders.The best laid plans have a habit of coming undone due to the unexpected. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and Frank,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post! I see your point. I guess the thing that bugs me about Hutchinson is I do not believe he was the ripper and I cant figure out why He would lie? What would he have to gain by misleading the police? I agree that I do not believe that Hutchinsons story is accurate. I agree that he would not have been able to get a good look at the man that was with Kelly if his story was as if he explained. The only way that his discribtion can be this accurate is if he actually saw the man or met the man in a different setting. I have posted on this subject prior to this post and my theory should be up soon. I would welcome any thoughts that you guys may have regarding my post.
Obviously Abberline did not believe that Hutchinson got a good look at the ripper because of his statements to the press in 1903 and that could be because three reasons 1. He did not think that the man that GH saw was the killer. 2. He did not believe GH'S description or just perhapes like Inspector Dew he thought that he was mistaken about the night.
I have one more idea that is a little left footed but is possible that Hutchinson had seen this man around Whitechaple either with Kelly earlier or just lurking around and he took advantage of the oppurtunity to lead the police on to this man who he may have suspected.
YOUR FRIEND,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Your post brings up a good point. Why would a man walk into WhiteChaple with fake or real jewellery the muggers would have a field day. That is a good point. I believe Glenn mentioned your point as well but George Hutchinson would have known the eastend well and if was tring to draw suspicion off himself why would he describe such a fancy man. Knowing that Abberline knew the eastend so well and his fancy description may cause Abberline to suspect that he was lieing about the man he saw and may cause the detective to find him even more suspicious. I really do believe he came forward because he wanted to do the right thing. I think he saw somebody with Kelly and he discribed I am not sure if the circumstances of the sighting are accurate or the man was the ripper
YOUR Friend,CB |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Just to throw in another situation.
First, GH is one of my 'possibles', and my theory is that he was there and was lying through his teeth. Maybe not JtR, maybe a mugger or pimp, but there and up to no good. However, put that aside.
There is a third possibility between him being JtR (or other nefarious person), and him telling the truth, which is that he was simply a common or garden attention seeker.
If his testimony is disregearded entirely as fabrication, we have two other lines of enquiry - 'carroty hair man' and the man - in this theory _not_ GH - with the wideawake hat.
Do such people come forward with complete fabrication? Yes, frequently. And the crowds at the inquest etc, might just be the incentive for such a person to come forward, just as TV coverage etc. is now.
Regards
Pete |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Right Hi Glenn
Thanks for that and I agree with you too!
Well theres a lot of stuff going here... GH..Mr INNOCENT OR MR EAST END?????????????
As to George's description!..To
make such a bizarre description smacks to me of some sort of 'imagination'!(panic etc etc )
GH was trying to get his description as far away from himself (and most off the East End! ) as possible!As posters have pointed out someone as be jewelled as that wouldnt have made it round the corner INTO let alone OUT of Dorset St probably then as now!!!
As to the fabrication!!! It happens now!!! I always watch the 'murder' bits on the news and look at the weeping fathers and lovers and say....Its them! they did it!!!! and strangely am quite often proved right!
Hmmmm
Suzi
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:09 am: | |
Perhaps complete fabrication is too strong a word to use regarding Hutchinson's statement.I believe most of it was,but I am sure he was the man Lewis saw outside Crossinghams.If he was lying to being that person, he was taking a risk of being exposed if that person had or would turn up.
The most important thing that Hutchinson did,was to introduce a suspect,and put him in a place where a victim was killed.The inclusion of the forty five minutes wait was neccessary to create an illusion that if Kelly's companion had not left by then,he was staying the night.As the time of death both by medical opinion, and witness hearing of cries of murder,was the early hours of that morning,Kelly's companion would seem the logical murderer.George Hutchinson created an alibi of the other person.An unknown who was seen by no one except Hutchinson.
Did the cry of murder come from Kelly's room.Undoubtably.No other disturbance is known to have happened in Millers Court that night,nor for that matter anywhere in Dorset Street,and I believe the police would have been thorough in their enquiries of those two locations. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Harry
OK Our Hutch put forward a very credible ( maybe to the incredulous!) suspect BUT I Dont imagine for a moment that GH thought that Mary's 'visitor' was staying the night he was maybe just curious (if in a tad tired from coming back from Romford sort of way!!!!)
EXACTLY the GH 'man' wans't seen by anyone else...
Hmmmmmmmm I ALWAYS wonder why no one interviewed THE RINGERS or maybe they did ...I stand corrected here! if they did!
As to disturbances in Millers Ct...There were the footsteps !!! walking in or out can never be known but they were heard!
At the end of the day I am quite sure that 'disturbances' were two a penny each minute in Dorset St!
Not quite the place to call the police for a domestic I feel!!!!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
G'day Harry,
About Hutchinson taking more care not to be seen: Sarah Lewis said she was on her way to Mrs. Keyler's when she saw him - that's one potential witness.
Plus she said: 'Further on there was a man and woman...' - That's two more potential witnesses! I do believe he knew more about Kelly's murder than he told police, but I find it hard to believe he was the actual killer, because why didn't he just wait for a better opportunity to perform the murder? A time when he could be certain that he wasn't seen?
Perhaps he waited until after the inquest to make sure that no one else claimed to see Mary Kelly after 2a.m., and that the man and woman in Dorset Street didn't appear.
LEANNE
'BETTER LATE THAN........PREGNANT!'
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:00 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
Referring to your post in which you said: '...someone as be jewelled as that wouldn't have made it around the corner..': His suspect was rather over dressed wasn't he?
The London 'Times' 14 November, gave Hutchinson's statement in full, then: 'I believe I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain...''
There's someone here who will say that the reporter made it all up, but where are we to draw the line? Do we dismiss as lies all the statements that we don't WANT to believe?
Looking up what was at Petticoat Lane at the time, reveals that it was: 'choked with buyers and sellers of old clothes' and 'sham jewellery'. Especially on a Sunday morning.
Posters are probably right in saying that Hutchinson's suspect wouldn't have made it around the corner dressed liked that, and no one in their right mind would have even tried. That leads me to believe that if there was any truth in what Hutchinson claimed he saw, then the man was wearing 2nd-hand clothes and fake jewellery.....a disguise!
LEANNE
Q: How do you prevent a summer cold?
A: Catch it in the winter! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Good point!.verrrry Sherlock Holmes!
Maybe he'd made a few purchases from Mr Diemschutz!
The spats give him away tho!
Cheers
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
G'day sarah,
Remember the suspect: "hung down his head with his hat over his eyes" and "looked at me stern", when he walked passed Hutchinson. Is that the behaviour of a total stranger? Or is it the behaviour of someone trying not to be recognized?
Perhaps the stern look was really an attempt to disguise his features!
LEANNE
Q: What did the elephant say to the naked man?
A: "How do you breathe through that thing????"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
