|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:36 pm: |       |
Hi Leanne
Having had a day at work to think about it..as you do!
As to the 'hung down his head and looked very stern' bit
All we really have here is George's comment' I stooped down and I looked him in the face he looked at me stern'
Then we get to the 'Comfortable'bit and the red hanky and Bob's yr Uncle(!) ....our man disappears into Ripper 'history'..only there c/o GH
George' statement is completed by saying
I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out.They did not so I went away'...Where did George go???
Cheers
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
I remember reading somewhere, (I can't give the exact reference right now because I haven't got time and don't know if I'll have time later), that Hutchinson then went to his regular lodging house but it was closed, so he did what many had to do at the time and walked the streets all night.
LEANNE
NO TIME FOR A JOKE, SORRY!
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
G'day Suzi,
It was in 'Pall Mall Gazette' 14 November: 'After I left the court I walked about all night as the place where I usually sleep was closed'
I also noticed in this article what I think Richard was referring to when he stated that Hutchinson told his fellow lodgers: 'I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday and he advised me to go to police station.' For a start he told ONE lodger on the SAME DAY as the inquest, not as soon as it happened.
The date on Monday was the 12th. Mary Kelly was murdered on the morning of the 9th! He still waited 4 days before he told anyone, and even then it could have been AFTER the inquest!!!
LEANNE
The tomato family were out walking and the boy tomato couldn't keep up.....Mummy tomato complained to Daddy tomato so Daddy tomato squashed boy tomato and said......"KETCHUP!"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Hmmmm that's interesting 'eh?
OK GH 'said' that his lodging house was closed and so had to walk the streets all night..OK not an uncommon thing to do but if he didn't..Then he had the PERFECT alibi!
Ok the telling to the other lodger! as told to the Press...surely someone... if not Abberline would have asked GH at his INTERVIEW ,why he decided to come and 'cough' 4 days later!
I dont believe that GH told anyone anything until maybe he thought he ought to!
Hmmm?
Cheers
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Leanne re post 1429,
I was reading Paul Begg"s latest book today entitled,"JtR the facts" and found this paragraph he chose to insert in it regarding "eastenders of 1888.It is at the end of a chapter on Martha Tabram,page 38
. Even before the inquest had been concluded[on Martha Tabram],however,a journalist for the East London Advertiser felt it necessary to rebut opinions that the East End was a den of vice and iniquity:
....some fearful-minded persons think the inhabitants of our district are all ruffians and viragoes,who aquired a taste for theiving and violence in their mothers arms.The finger of scornis only too frequently held up to us by those whose sense of justice and even common honesty should tell them how undeserved is this wholesale condemnation.Such opinions and sentiments are so ridiculous that wsere it not for the harm they do it would not be worthwhile to notice them.What are the facts?The statistics or reurns of criminal offences show that,in proportion,there is really no more crime,either of a greater or lesser degree,in East London than in any other part of the metropolice,or for that matter of that in Great Britain.
This Leanne from an inhabitant of the East End AT THE TIME.
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi,
If one puts it into context, the east end of London in 1888 compared with the East End of London of 2004 is similiar, the whitechapel area of today consists of many different nationals, like its past, all struggling in a modern world to earn a crust by hook or by crook, they all live their own life, in a somewhat hectic atmosphere, and there are good and bad on the streets like there has always been.
The east end of london is , and always been a stick together community, and I would assume it always has been, people share their good fortune and there troubles, for exsample the Blitz of 1940-41.
To life in Whitechapel/ Aldgate, during these murders of 88, would have been a sharing the troubles occasion, and everybody in that area , would have only have one intention , apprehending the killer.
Regards Richard.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Richard,What you say adds up to me.It seems always to have had a varied cross-section of people-some have indeed been the villains of folklore and others equally the salt of the earth[with some healthy cross fertilization at times!]
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I appreciate what you're saying here but the Whitechapel of today is a very different place to the Whitechapel of 1888 .OK... its very multicultural ..and notwithstanding ..a great deal of fun,even at night..despite us 'Ripperologists!' which I understand some locals are not over happy with..prowling about outside those BEAUTIFUL houses! mind you who can blame 'em!
I agree though that troubles were common amongst the inmates of Whitechapel but there again theres always the odd one! As the phrase goes..there's ONE in EVERY village!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
Hi Suzi, from the sources I have come across lately on the Whitechapel of 1888 the place was just as racially mixed in 1888 as it is today.Then there were immigrant Eastern Europeans,mostly Jewish but also Italians,Swedish,French etc.In fact historically the East End provided refuge for people and institutions that did not want to come under the City"s jurisdiction which included religious orders such as the French Huguenots in the 17th century[hence the lovely silk weavers houses of Fournier Street and Artillery Row etc].In the 19th and 20th centuries the main group of refugees came from Eastern Europe-again escaping persecution.Later from Bengal.
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi Nats
Totally agree with all of the above!..Those gorgeous houses in Fornier St etc as you say the Huguenot houses are a delight to behold! I heard a rumour though that the incumbents of these lovely des res's don't over appreciate the Ripper tours trawling around the area although this may be a malicious lie!
Personally I LOVE the area and find it as stimulating and exciting now as then ( less stressful in the daylight though!) Get to the Sheraz AKA The Frying Pan No 13 Brick Lane!! on the corner of Thrawl St..even better!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Thanks for your email Nats
Nice quote from Paul Beggs Book Must point out that it's Christmas soon here!
Cheers
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Hi Suzi,The book is very good and includes quite a bit of information I hadnt had or accessed
on here.All the "facts" are well collated in readable and interesting material-so you can drop off to sleep with a new Vincent Price movie in your head!
Take Care
Nats. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Nats!
Its on the list!!!!!!'The Facts 'are definatly on my list of things to have!! Sorry was a bit miz the other day am verry good now!
'A New Book' can only improve things!!!! Cant beat a few 'Facts' to cheer you up that's what I say!!!!!Tell you for what its worth ....am re-reading 'Birds Beasts and Animals' the follow up to 'My Family and Other Animals' by Gerald Durell and am crying with laughter!!! I recommend it!if youre feeling 'down' it makes you laugh despite yourself!
Anyway ta for your email!!
xx suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,sounds good-will look out for it.Glad you have bucked up!
- getting back to the thread,to me Hutchinson"s description lent weight to my favourite suspect Druitt.This is because I can picture a Druitt beginning to be deluded and obsessed taking himself over to Whitechapel in his Court Clothes-unaware of the inappropriateness of such attire in Whitechapel at 2.30 that Friday.If he was beginning to be ill with paranoid schizophrenia like his poor mother,a feature of the illness is the [often bizarre] dress.But it is more an indifference to custom and practice than dressing bizarrly.I recall that a gold chain was found 0n his body with a spade guinea attached: also a pair of kid gloves and a white handkerchief and a silver watch.He was said to have been well dressed.He was also similar in facial appearance to the man described by Hutchinson to judge from photos of him.
Its the reason I think Abberline appeared to take him seriously.I think the police may have had such a description from other sources/witnesses-perhaps by some we dont know of yet.I just cant believe that the only thing to connect Druitt with the murders was that he was found drowned soon after MJK was murdered.I suspect he took little sortis to Whitechapel when the urge came on.But maybe that had nothing to do with the murders-he was just seen in the wrong place at the time by several people.[I know you dont rate Hutchinson"s description etc but thought I"d "air" one of my half baked theories!
Nats |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Suzi,
I did not say he put forward a credible witness,Isaid it was an alibi of another person
being on the scene.Nothing was credible about the male he said he saw,not the way Hutchinson describes it.
If He had really been waiting for forty five
minutes and he did not expect an all night stay,why not hang around a little longer.Of course Hutchinson gave the impression that the stranger was not going to reappear.As to what Hutchinson was really thinking,neither you or I know.We can only go by what is in his statement.
The footsteps in the court are simply not an indication of an incident that would invoke a cry of murder.It was that of a person walking away.
Perhaps incidents were frequent,but not that night,unless you have information that belies that observation.
Leanne,
Only SArah lewis is reported as having seen a man standing outside Crossinghams at about two thirty.
Potentially there might have been a thousand other witnesses,but only Lewis came forward,this despite a complete police coverage of the area seeking information from any and everyone who might have seen something that night.
But if Hutchinson was the murderer,he did wait for a better oportunity.That was at a time when the cry of murder was heard,which was some time after being seen outside Crossinghams,and a time when he cannot be placed by witnesses at the scene of the murder,and a time when supposedly someone else was in the room with her.
THe important point is that untill it can be proved that Hutchinson was lying,or that the male he said he saw at two o'clock had left the room before the murder took place,or untill that male can be identified,J.T.R.will never be known by name.
And the nearest we can advance the search is to believe from the above that Hutchinson was lying. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
It is refreshing to see Natalie Severn give a true perspective of the Whitechapel of 1888.
It is also amazing to see the turnabout in some peoples opinion's,when faced with the true facts.
For too long we have been fed with false information by authors more interested in selling books,than giving a true picture of life in Whitechapel of 1888.
Cries of Oh.Murder being a regular occurance.Incidents being two a penny every minute of the day.Murder and crime rampant.What utter rot.Where is the evidence of this.Not in the newspapers of the day,nor the recollections of those that lived at the time.
And people of extraordinary mental abilities,that can see and remember minute details days afterwards.No wonder Hutchinson is overlooked.
If one looks for a magician and finds a common labourer,then we know why the case will never be solved. |
Helen Heller
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
I always thought that the problem with Hutchinson's evidence is that he corroborates Sarah Lewis. Sarah Lewis does not corroborate him as she testifies first.
I find it hard to believe that he stood in the entrance to Millers Court for 45 minutes, heard about Lewis's testimony at the inquest, and then comes forward and gives that extremely detailed description. I know of at least one cop prepared to hang Hutchinson on that description alone!
I don't think he was the Ripper. But I do think he came forward for a reason, and it wasn't justice for Mary Kelly. I suspect he was persuaded to approach the police by someone who thought it would be in their best interests to have a credible witness say 'I was standing there for 45 minutes and didn't see anything...' And that someone was likely the man who really was seen by Sarah Lewis at the entrance to Millers Court.
Don't forget, if someone you know is a suspect in this kind of killing, human nature suggests that you don't believe he did it. The newspapers are full of 'He was such a nice guy' comments to this effect. So if JtR--who one assumes has a number of friends and acquaintances--says to one of them 'I saw that tart with a punter. Could have been the murderer! I stood in Millers Court and watched them go into her crib. But that woman saw me and now the cops might look at me!!' I can see Hutchinson volunteering to help out. Especially if there's a drink or two at the end of it. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi Harry ,Helen and Nats!!!!
Ooooh! God the thing about Georgie boy is that I cant get out of my head is that he and Mary had some SERIOUS history!!!!!..these two were 'friends' shall we say...Hutch had a link with Mary that had to be dealt with ..if that meant going to the 'Old Bill' then he would have done that...despite the fact that he was probably guilty as hell!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi.
Lets not get carried away with the friends aspect, Hutchinson Knew Mary , but that does not imply that he occasionally serviced her, I Would imagine our Mary was a familar figúre in that area, even Walter Dew knew her by sight.
As i have mentioned before why can't our George be simply a man who bumped into a woman he knew on the morning of the 9th Nov 88, and repeated his knowledge to the police albeit it late.
There is nothing suspiscíous about his statement , I would say he told the police exactly what happened, the question is 'Would the police allow a accurate description being released to the press.
how would that help a police investigation of this magnitude.
It would surely stop the killer wearing similar clothing for starters.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Good points Richard.I was writing about this myself on the concurrent thread but hadnt thought about the description being the work of the police to throw others off the scent!Quite possible I would think.
Natalie
ps Richard I have only ever heard the activity of "servicing" in connection with bulls or stallions in stud.I may be wrong here but in anycase isnt it the case that the "service" is provided by the prostitute?
I am not wanting to seem priggish although I realise I may sometimes come across that way.In fact I know that noone has more careful regard for the memory of these hapless victims of JtR
than yourself and I think this is how it should be.Anyway I hope you dont mind me mentioning it Richard
Best Wishes Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Richard-
1) It is strange ????? for men to be Friends with a woman!
2)'Servicing' as Nats said is usually reserved for dogs,cats and horses etc!
3)Our Walter seemed to 'know' a lot of people..... wish Valarie would post!
4)OK George probably was a 'normal' regular Herbert around Dorset St but albeit with a slightly vivid imagination!..I think he was describing in his own way the man that he wanted to see..rather than anyone actually seen....George's man is just an image of something imagined I feel!....,the shop dummy springs to mind..
Nats
Not at all priggish!!!! (!)
Cheers
Suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,-I"ve been enjoying your posts!Keep on encouraging Valarie too-!!!!
See Ya
Nats |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"There is nothing suspicíous about his statement , I would say he told the police exactly what happened"
Yeah right, Richard. Dream on.
There are a million signs saying that his story was in many aspects a fabrication. At least for someone has has studied hundreds of witness statements in connection with different cases, the very detailed description of his "suspect" with the think gold chain looks very suspicious to say the least.
Not to mention the motives he had to come forward with a story that would put him in a better light.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 2:57 am: | |
G'day Suzi,
I just got home from a holiday/vacation at Surfer's Paradise, Queensland. Starting with a post made on September 3: Why must we immediately assume that Inspector Abberline asked George Hutchinson all the necessary questions? The police at the time weren't used to handling motiveless murders where the victims were selected relatively randomly. They didn't have many past cases to learn the behaviour of criminals from, so couldn't have known all the right questions to ask. If these great-minded geniuses still had something to learn, why can't some people understand that?
If Abberline did amazingly ask all the right questions, found someone to verify that his lodging house was full and saw him innocently walking the streets all night, why wasn't that information recorded somewhere? Wouldn't they have at least wanted to teach future students of criminal detection?
It doesn't matter if the police did ask Hutchinson why he waited 4 days to tell police. It still should have been verified by someone else.
LEANNE
Q: How many tourists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Ten, one to change it and nine to take photos! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
Hi Ladies,
Ooops wrong choice of wording, what i meant to state was 'using the service of a prostitute'
One of the main reasons i have a [ hopefully a healthy] intrest in these murders is the desire that the killer may come to light one day, so that it will give justice to the poor victims.
I very much feel respect for all those unfortunate women.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:26 am: | |
G'day Harry,
You said that only Sarah Lewis came forward and reported seeing a man standing at Crossinghams at that time but 'potentially there might have been a thousand.' No way!
The 'Star', 14 November 1888 says that Hutchinson said: 'When I left the corner of Millers Court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial Street end of Dorset Street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset Street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset Street and no one else.'
LEANNE
"Doctor, doctor, tell me straight. Is it bad?"
"Just don't start watching any new TV serials!"
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
My opinion is when Hutchinson came forward , he recalled his encounter in full to Abberline, and the police. My point is what use would it be to issue an exact description of the man that accosted kelly that morning, when it could harm their investigations, not enhance them.
We should remember when accusing this guy of lying for some devious motive, that by producing himself at the police station on the monday night, he was infact placing himself at the crime scene, and would have been considered the last person to have seen her alive by the police, that would be playing a dangerous game, for the police were after blood.
So what were his motives, there are three.
A] He thought it was his duty to report to the police the events of that night.
b] He was after some kind of payment.
c] he was involved in the murder in some respect, and Mrs Lewis evidence was a worry.
Sample A.
The most logical reason, he truely felt that he may have saw the killer, and after relaying that sighting to other boarders at his lodgings , was given the confidence to approach the police, which he may well originaly thought was a scary thought.
b]To gain access to the reward money, would mean that his evidence would have had to been accurate so that the police could apprehend the man, and a conviction of that person would have had to been secured, before any claim could have been made.
c] to suggest that he was the killer, or a lookout for the killer, or a pimp would mean that the evidence of a woman who did not know him, alarmed him so much that he decided to place himself on the spot.
That suggestion is ludricous, if Lewis had said' That man Hutchinson was standing across the road as i passed' then understandable, but a short stoutish man unknown to her is what she relayed, why would that send a petrified man running to the police?.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2150
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Hi Richard!
"My point is what use would it be to issue an exact description of the man that accosted kelly that morning, when it could harm their investigations, not enhance them."
Because he was probably most interested in his own situation, not the investigation.
"that by producing himself at the police station on the monday night, he was infact placing himself at the crime scene, and would have been considered the last person to have seen her alive by the police, that would be playing a dangerous game, for the police were after blood."
News flash, Richard! He was placed there already! That is why he came forward!
What most certainly is correct in his statement is the fact that he was there, and then it is not hard to understand that he found out that a women had seen a man standing there keeping a look-out at that particular time and therefore -- rightly so -- decided to produce himself as a witness (with a story trying to explain his whereabouts) instead of letting the police search for him -- a situation that would have been even more incriminating for him.
c] "He thought it was his duty to report to the police the events of that night."
No. This, I think, is ludicrous. Such detailed witness descriptions are very uncommon and rare, and the person doesen't really fit well into those parts of East End either -- he does fit the caricature of those types of Jewish characters that the general public and the media perceived as the Ripper. A total fabrication.
"b] He was after some kind of payment."
Not impossible, but a bit risky to place himself on the crime scene just because of this motive.
"c] he was involved in the murder in some respect, and Mrs Lewis evidence was a worry."
I do think Mrs Lewis evidence did worry him, but I can't see any reason for him to be involved in the murder.
"if Lewis had said' That man Hutchinson was standing across the road as i passed' then understandable, but a short stoutish man unknown to her is what she relayed, why would that send a petrified man running to the police?."
It doesen't matter if Lewis recognized him or not or how much her description fits him (this is totally irrelevant).
The point is that he knew himself that he had been there and then it would be quite natural for him to do something about it if he found out that someone had spotted a man there at that time.
He couldn't know for sure if someone else besides Mrs Lewis had seen something as well and maybe even could identify him, and therefore to eliminate this risk, he had to come forward.
This was quite a serious and spectacular murder case, Richard, and with a serial killer at large. It would be quite difficult for him if he was placed at the murder scene by someone else, ad he couldn't risk it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Glenn!!!!!!
Suggest we cross this over into the MJK.. 'Was MJK a Victim ' thread here! We're all saying the same thing here and I think it may help to all get together here!!!!!
Maybe a new thread on MJK would open a new one?'All together Now!' may be a good title!!!!! will email you!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I am slightly lost by your response, what I suggested was Hutchinson if a suspicious character, whether murderous or not, had no reason to place himself in the vacinity of the crime, if he was aware of mrs Lewís's evidence , because he was not named as the person she saw.
He logically only came forward for two reasons monetary, or as a sense of duty.
As explained in order for him to claim any reward money he would have had to relay imformation to the police that could lead to a arrest, and that arrest could secure a conviction. therefore the description told to the police on the monday evening would have been truthful. the rest was up to the police to issue a statement that would have been beneficial to them, in order to possibly gain a arrest.
If he was up to no good for whatever reason, and as Mrs Lewis did not name the person she saw, outside crossinghams, he had no reason to rush forward with a made up account why he was the one that was there.
why can,t we just accept the fact that a witness by the name of George Hutchinson relayed imformation to the police [although belated] that the police took serious enough to have him accompany police officers in a search of the area for the man he saw.
I cannot accept that he was a killer , a pimp, a mugger, or any other nasty individual, just plain George that we are still discussing 116 years later.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Richard
I dont feel that George was 'just plain George' under any cicumstances..
I suspect as I often bang on about ..that George and Mary had a 'history' of some kind and that although probably not the brightest button in the box.. George was not above getting his 15 mins of fame (knowing that he was in the clear....and probably knowing very little else!!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2151
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
"I am slightly lost by your response, what I suggested was Hutchinson if a suspicious character, whether murderous or not, had no reason to place himself in the vacinity of the crime, if he was aware of mrs Lewís's evidence, because he was not named as the person she saw.
He logically only came forward for two reasons monetary, or as a sense of duty."
No, I don't buy that.
I am a bit puzzled here; I did try to explain to you, that the fact that he was not completely identifed doesen't matter!
I can only repeat what I said earlier, since you totally missed the point:
He admitted in his own testimony that he had been on the scene of the murder. There would be no reason for him to take such a risk by placing himself there, unless he already had found out that someone else had seen him -- or at least seen a man there. To place himself at the scene of the murder just in order to deliver a testimony and "help" the police in their investigation, would be far too risky and not a good reason enough. The only reasonable explanation is that he did it in order to save his own skin.
As I said, he couldn't know just how much Mrs Lewis had seen or if anyone else had seen even more and maybe also would identify him later on. We know there probably wasn't, but he didn't, and I don't think he was prepared to take the chance.
Therefore I believe he decided to come forward himself (I believe he felt it would be more incriminating for him if the police had to search for him), and by cooking up a story of how he followed Mary and her toff companion, he managed to get out of the mess he had gotten himself into.
Now, what he really did there, we don't know. But it doesen't necessarily mean that he was her murderer -- that is not the issue here.
It could be that he was involved in other things -- we don't know.
I don't believe for a minute in Hutchinson's testimony, and I have explained why over and over again, Richard.
Such detailed descriptions are generally not credible from a witness; furthermore, his "suspect's" appearance has more similarities with the caricatures of wealthy Jewish people at the time, created by the general public and the media (just look at the illustrations in the news-papers).
Hutchinson is no more a credible witness or credible person than I am a millionaire with a bank account in Switzerland. I'd say the larger part of his story is a complete fabrication and a fairy-tale, only created to "explain" his appearance at the scene of the murder. It is totally unimportant whether he was identified or not -- he felt there was a chance that he might be, and that's what counts.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:43 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Imagine this scenerio.
A man is standing opposite a bank in a town, the next morning the bank discovers it has been robbed overnight, a woman passing by informs the police that she passed by that bank at midnight, she heard nothing but saw a man opposite the bank, that she didnt know, shortish and stout.
The man in question realizes that she was refering to him, but he is completly innocent , he had just stopped to rest for a while.
If the man saw something he might contact the police, simply out of public duty, but if he was a member of the bank robbers, he certainly would not contact the police, the woman did not reconize him, or know him so no harm done.
I Cannot imagine he would rush to the police if he had any guilt attached to him, it is also similar to a person rushing away from a affray, and someone saw them, but could not name them, would that person be so paronoid as to imform the police he was the one seen, but there is a explanation....
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:59 am: | |
G'day Rich,
Thanks for using this example! If the man opposite the bank saw something suspicious, then his great sense of public duty would have caused him to go to the police as soon as the robbery was discovered.
If he was the robber or an accessory to that robbery, then 4 days later heard that someone had spotted him at the scene, all he had to do was rush to the police station and pretend to be a witness to someone else's suspicious behaviour. That would have directed the police investigation away from the man opposite the bank!
LEANNE
Q: HOW MANY MAGICIANS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
A: WHAT DO YOU WANT IT CHANGED INTO?
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Glenn and Suzi,Its not that I dont see that your points are quite valid and that we need to be aware that Hutshinson could have made it all up.
Its more that in insisting Hutchinson was a
liar/pimp/or MjK"s killer if not himself the ripper we
a]throw away what might actually be a description of Ms Kelly"s killer by the only witness to have seen her with her killer that night.
b]also diminish the credibility of Abberline as a man not only working on the case in the Whitechapel of 1888,but with great experience as a detective and as a connoiseur of Whitechapel through hands on casework and mingling with that community.He would have taken the trouble to check him out.AcDoyle makes it clear in his detective stories that each individual had a hinterland that needed to be investigated and that exploration of this could lead to the solving of the crime.[these were written at the time as well].
As far as patterns of behaviour are concerned well yes Glenn has a good point here of course and it is a rather too accurate description for most of us today to swallow.However I myself have what is termed a photographic memory and remember detail in the way he described it.I can literally "see" that person,building etc in close detail when I remember people,places things.Its not that uncommon either I understand.
Another thing is that individuals vary in their behaviour patterns.Its what distinguishes us from the insect world say where patterns of behaviour are rigid and invariable.So just because most people who are liars tend to provide detail doesnt mean that ALL will.This is where profiling comes a bit unstuck in my opinion.
Natalie
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3015
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Hi Natalie
Just on the photographic memory : you're an artist, and I envy you your visual memory (I have an appalling visual memory). I think someone once found a GH who was an artist. The trouble is, if GH had a photgraphic memory, why couldn't he pick out the policeman he claims to have spoken to? Or if he was an artist, why didn't he draw his own sketch of the toff?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Hey,look Robert,you are right.But drawing isnt just a question of talent.You have to practise it endlessly to get it right[or nearly right].Carrying the information you see onto the paper with pencil or whatever is yet another hard earned skill!
As far as the policeman goes well it may be invented that but once again-just because he invents that bit to cover his neglect of duty and try to put that neglect in a better light doesnt necessarily make the rest of his story an invention.Its too black and white that in my view.
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Hi leanne,
The main point is , if George Hutchinson was up to no good that being the very worst scenerio, or less devious thoughts , such as pimping or mugging or simply wishing to spend the remainder of the night with Kelly instead of walking the streets, why would he volunteer a visit to the hungry Whitechapel police when he did not need to.
He may have learnt on the monday via the inquest that a man resembling himself was seen opposite millers court at 230am, but are we seriously suggesting that because of this vague description, he panicked and invented a story involving the elaborate story he told, to give him cause to be in that spot.
if he was alarmed . all he had to do was report to the police that he was in Dorset street around 230am, but saw nothing of importance either the murder victim, or a man with her. He simply was wasting the night away.
His paronoid alarm . therefore would be acceptable.
To invent a person, that did not exist , to throw scent of himself is extremely doubtful.
George Hutchinson [ Poor plain George] has been labled as a killer , a pimp , a prospective mugger, a stalker.
How about being realistic . he was a ordinary citizen, making a statement which he saw.
I for one am suspisious about the statement released,but if not true it could have been police involvement. , wasnt his statement tampered with?.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
But surely police would have wanted to know why he was alone and staring up Miller's Court as if waiting for someone to come out! I'll think more about this today.
Maybe that was why he thought he had to give a very detailed description.
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
Hi,
Why such a detailed statement, surely the police would have thought the same way , the majority of people think today ie. this is suspicious...
All he had to do was throw away his wideawake hat, and keep out of that area for a period of time, so he ran less risk of bumping into the woman Lewis, and if he was unlucky enough to been identified in the future as the man seen, would have simply said 'I believe i was in that area that night but i never thought of coming forward as i had nothing to report, i never saw kelly or anything suspicious'.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
G'day Rich,
'All he had to do was report to the police that he was in Dorset Street around 2:30a.m.'
...but why was he: 'looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out'?????
Why are you suspicious about a three-page witness statement that bears George Hutchinson's signiture, was witnessed by three police officers, and submitted by a fourth: 'F.G.AbberlineInspr'?
Read ya in the morning! LEANNE
|
NC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Richard,
You say "why can,t we just accept the fact that a witness by the name of George Hutchinson relayed imformation to the police [although belated] that the police took serious enough to have him accompany police officers in a search of the area for the man he saw."
We perhaps shouldn't consider the "walk-around with George" as absolute evidence that Abberline believed everything in GHs statement:
1. Why do the walk-around at all? With such a detailed identification surely it was unnecessary to have George in tow. It was also such a longshot that GH and party would run into this geezer in the street as to be almost absurd.
2. Why were two detectives used in this way? Surely a lowly Bobby would be used for this rather than two of the force's finest minds, especially considering detectives were a very scarce resource.
3. Did Abberline have something else in mind, eg. keeping GH directly under observation?
4. Did something or someone then divert the focus from GH?
Just questioning some assumptions that seem to have been jumped to.
Neale
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Helen,
Hutchinson did not come forward and say he saw nothing.Just the opposite.He said he saw things of much consequence concerning Mary Kelly.He was either telling the truth or he was lying.
He had over two days in which to compile his statement,he came forward voluntarilly,and he had further opportunity in the presence of Aberline and the sergeant who took his statement,to alter anything that was said or written.He further elaborated in a story to the press,so it cannot be presumed that he was forced or pressured into making mistakes.His credability stands by what he said.
You either believe him or you do not,but in either case,that belief should be based on what one thinks is a true state of affairs based on the information that is known.
Simply saying 'I believe' or 'I disbelieve'is not enough.
There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Hutchinson came forward at the behest of another person,or that he came forward to protect another person. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Richard,
Most of what Hutchinson said can be treated with suspicion,unless that is you can perform the feat of memory you attribute to him,or can produce someone who can.For all his amazing recall,the only time he falters is when he says he might have seen the stranger on a previous occasion.Then he is not so sure.Why not,well most certainly that person never existed.
Perhaps we have all at sometime waited for something that does not take place,and there comes a time when a decision is made whether further waiting is desireable.
Hutchinson says that point came at about 3A.M.Of course the idea he is suggesting is that if the person had not appeared by that time,then he was not going to reappear in the near future.
As both medical evidence and the cry of 'Oh murder'suggests a kill time of very early morning,it requires no stretch of the imagination to assume the stranger was still in the room.That is if Hutchinson was telling the truth.That is what he wants people to believe.It disqualifies himself,Barnett and a host of other suspects,though I doubt he was interested in creating an alibi for someone else.
Lewis would have been about twenty feet from Hutchinson as she entered the court.Even on a dark night,not an impossible distance for recognition,and of course there was the fact that she had never said she did not know who it was.He was not a petrified man by any means,his putting another man at the scene was chancy,but he did not have many options.
Leanne,
Potentially was a word you used to describe two persons you say were in Dorset Street.In using the word,I was merely describing a situation that although not in evidence at the time,could quickly change.We know it did not,but it could have.
|
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:52 am: | |
Bob Hinton wrote on August 16 at 6:00 a.m.:
"If Hutchinson had gone to the police at any time before he actually did for me that would place his complicity in the crime in considerable doubt. However the one logical answer as to the timing of his statement must inevitably be that he was forced to make it to explain his presence."
Very concise and to the point Bob. If I may offer an unfounded speculation that has occurred to me as I attempt to catch up on this thread in one sitting (it isn't going to happen!!!). There is no evidence this occurred but it would somewhat simplify the mystery of why the police believed GH's story.
Let us suppose that GH, upon awakening, is informed of the murder and the identity of the victim. GH trots post-haste to the station to tell the police of what he saw during his walkabout the previous night and morning. Abberline, realizing he has captured lightning in a bottle, promptly hides GH away and issues a description of the man GH had seen. GH is then used to "cruise" the area looking for the suspect for the remainder of the weekend.
Again, the above is only speculation, or more aptly, a WAG, but it would explain the police acceptance of GH's story.
A couple of questions regarding GH's sightings.
1) How well lit were the streets, especially Whitechapel & Thrawl, where GH alleges he saw the suspect & Kelly?
2) The story about the newspaper wrapped knife & blood splattered glove. Was there any follow-up on that?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
George Hutchinson could have said many things,told many different tales,involved many different people,but those people would have had to corroberate him.He came forward with a tale in which only two other people were involved,one who was killed,and one who did not exist.The simplicity of what he did is what most find hard to understand.He provided an alibi that would be hard to disprove.He placed another person with the victim at the presumed time of death.Only if that other person was real and was seen to leave Kelly's room at a time when Kelly was known to be alive,would suspicion fall on someone else.
Natalie,
Congratulations on your total recall abilities.I myself have attended and set memory tests many times,and you are the second person I know that comes near to being successful.The other person of course is George Hutchinson. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hi,
Re Police accompanying GH in search of the killer.
A man turns up at the station admitting not only to seeing but conversing with the victim.
The time indicates this is the last definite contact the victim had that the police know of so far.
Part of this mans statement is verified by another party (Cox).
This man, in my world, would be suspect numero uno. I now have a choice.
Arrest him....mmmm, Pizer fiasco still fresh? besides, my evidence is flimsy. I want more. So I let him lead whatever merry dance he chooses just to see what turns up.
It was George who suggested this idea. Its an odd request but Id have gone along with it and hope he slips on something.
Of course, he may be an attention seeker but what have I lost ??
Just my view.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Harry,I detect that you doubt my word over the memory matter.All I know is that I commit visual images to memory very easily and always have.The other day I had to remember a post office van in order to fit that van into a painting I am doing.
Today,two days later I can "see" the van as clearly as I did when I was actually looking at it.I can"t "see" the rest of the road that easily I must admit but the part I committed to memory is there as seen,in all its detail.
Anyway if you dont believe me thats your problem.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
I am interested that you regard Hutchinson as suspect number one,Monty.I must admit I used to have him down as the ripper but not so much now.
It seems unlikely that someone who committed the murder in Millers Court in particular would have gone into the police station to try to put the blame on somebody else however desperate he was to get his hands on the reward money or to deflect attention from himself.He would have had to be pretty simple minded to think he could get away with that one surely?
Wouldnt Abberline and co have checked him out,spoken to his mates and the landlords of the pubs
he usually drank in,the barmaids,shopkeepers the warden and other Lodgers at the Victoria Home etc.? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
NATS!!!!
I go all the way with you on the visual memory thing!!!!!!Thats how Art teachers do it!!!! never failed yet!!!!
As to the police not interviewing(!) in and about Ringers and the other pubs various!!! Thats always been a prob for me too!!
will email you
Suzi x
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
