| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:18 pm: |       |
G'day,
I have studied art history and have worked as a Commercial Artist and I can verify what Natalie says that some people remember in pictures that are stored on their minds, not words. But one has to consider the available lighting, distance and the lapse of time between the event and the recall.
Hutchinson told the press that he may have seen his suspect in Petticoat Lane. As I've already stated I looked up what went on in Petticoat Lane on Saturdays and found that it was bustling as a market, primarily for Jewish venders. The main product vended was second hand clothing.
I also found a source, (that had nothing to do with this case), that said that men up-to-no-good assembled in back rooms to discuss robberies. I'll have to find that source! I was going to keep this info to myself as it's discussed in my book and I wanted to give the book something to add that can be debated later, but I decided to bring it into the open because I may be able to add something.
I find it stange that Sarah Lewis recalled that a man and woman passed by, yet Hutchinson didn't mention them. If he had read about or heard Lewis's tesimony and wanted to explain his presence, wouldn't he have mentioned them to 'tie a double knot' between both stories? Especially if he had a photographic memory?
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 4:05 am: | |
Nats,
Hutchinson is NOT my No1 suspect. I feel I wasnt clear enough, Im sorry.
Im just saying that the last known person to have contact with the victim would raise an interest to the Police (remember Huntley?). They would regard him as a viable suspect and , at that moment in time, suspect number one.
This stance can change of course during the investigation. I feel it did sometimes during the wanderings with George in the surrounding area. Something led them away from him. But looking at the way they treated him I cant help but feel they were waiting for him to trip up.
Hope Im clearer now.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3030
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Hi Monty
I agree, they'd have taken a very close look at GH. But now you've got me wondering whether they took a close look at Schwartz!
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Monty,Yes that makes sense.I think you"re right.And the case of Huntley shows how plausible these villains can be.
And that does make you think twice about those murderers who can fool a lot of people into thinking they are just Joe Bloggs from next door---which is how he came over to most people who saw him on tv.I myself picked something up from his girl-friends TV perfomance-the "I"ve no idea" quip
but never noticed anything with regard to him.
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Thanks Suzi and Leanne for verifying this visual memory thing.Good point about the Sarah Lewis/couple who had been drinking statement.I agree,when you look closely at what has been recorded it doesnt all add up.Caz once or twice wrote about the possibility of a red handkerchief being found at the murder scene that would have corroborated Hutchinsons story but which the police may not have been prepared to divulge to the public at the time.However I think we would have known by now if that were so.One of them would have recorded it in his memoirs I would have thought.
Nats |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
G'day,
'The Wild Tribes of London' by Watts Phillips 1855 revealed something about the type of men that hung around Petticoat Lane at the time.
What was Hutchinson doing there, and what was his suspect doing there if it was indeed him?
LEANNE
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hi all!
Yes1! there is way toooo much stuff going on here!!!!!!
Mont and Nats..The Huntley is a real worry and also the 'Craig and Bently''horrors!!!!!!am sure that these two would have something to say!!! ( hopefully not to Richard!!!)
Cheers
suzi
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Correction,
In my last post I should have said subsequent sighting,as the Eleventh of course was two days after Kelly was killed.
Which of course brings forward another mystery.Why didn't Hutchinson contact a policeman at that time.He must have known the killing had taken place,and he was faced with the possible killer. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Natalie,
I neither doubt or believe your abilities,and there is quite a difference between a post office van and the events Hutchinson alledgedly saw.He cites at least fourteen different distinct items of observation,in poor lighting conditions,in a short space of time.You observed one common item in daylight conditions.Not a good comparison.And of course the problem is Hutchinson not yourself or me.
Leanne,
It is a good point about the possible previous sighting of the stranger by Hutchinson.Of course Hutchinson does not say whether it was the clothing or the features that triggered the resemblance.
If it was the clothing,and this is the detail that supposedly drew Hutchinson's attention on the night of the killing,it is amazing that such an outfit in that locality,was never remembered by any other inhabitant.He would surely have worn it on other occasions.
Memory training is not something that is the sole province of art teachers or their pupils.Many organisations employ some form of training,but none so far has stated they can improve memory to the point of instant recall.
Hutchinson gave his status as labourer,not an occupation that might endow the sort of powers that he seemingly possessed.
It is obvious that Hutchinson wishes the attention to be drawn to the person he says he saw.It is immaterial whether he reports any other person's presence in the street.Lewis saw him and reported it.His presence did not need any other verification.
I fail to see the significance of Petticoat lane on a Saturday.The other sighting of the stranger,took place on the eleventh of November,two days after Kelly was killed,a Sunday. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 3:17 am: | |
G'day Harry,
No, Hutchinson does not say what exactly triggered the resemblance to the person he saw in Petticoat Lane. It could have been the man's the voice, the hair colour, the red handkercheif, the stern look, the black tie and horse shoe pin, it might have been anything!
I made a mistake when I said Saturday. Hutchinson told the press: 'I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on SUNDAY morning, but I was not certain.' That was reported in the 'Times', 'The Star', 'Pall Mall Gazette' and 'St. James Gazette' at least, all on November 14. Petticoat Lane was a thriving market on Sunday morning!
When I put Petticoat'into the press reports search engine just now, I found Petticoat Lane mentioned in 'Daily Gazette and Bulletin' Pensilvania, USA, 1st of October'. The report was about the Catharine Eddowes murder and it said: 'Many people pass through the square [Mitre] on Sunday morning on their way to prepare for market in notorious Petticoat-lane'.
Police wouldn't have known that someone was going to come forward the next month and claim to have seen a suspect in Petticoat Lane, so it would have meant nothing to them. Today we are able to look at the case from back to front and see things that should have been investigated but weren't.
Jack the Ripper was very likely to have been just a common costermonger,(street-seller).
LEANNE
Q: When does the alphabet have only 24 letters?
A: When U and I aren't there.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:35 pm: | |
G'day,
I've just been reading through what Hutchinson told the London 'Times' on the 13th of November again, (reported on the 14th).
Between the description of what his suspect was wearing, the parcel he was carrying in his left hand, the way he walked and perhaps seeing him in Petticoat Lane, Hutchinson remarked: 'I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood.'
Wealthy citizens may have visited the area occasionally to play 'slumming it', but if Hutchinson believed that the man LIVED in the area and had perhaps seen him on a number of occasions, then I'd say it was more likely that the guy was wearing pre-loved clothes.
LEANNE
Q: Where do you find a one legged dog?
A: Right where you left him!
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Leanne,
Look at it this way.Kelly was killed in the early hours of Friday,the Ninth of November.Hutchinson says a man accompanied her to her room in the early hours of that morning.
Hutchinson must surely have known of her murder when he believes he saw this man again on the Sunday.He does not alert anyone.
The next day,Monday,He goes to the police,gives a vivid description of this person,and says he can be identified.
You still believe Hutchinson is an honest,upright citizen,whose sole reason in coming forward was to help. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
G'day Harry,
WAIT A MINUTE! When did I say that Hutchinson was an honest, upright citizen? I have NEVER believed his statement! If I have used those words in a post about Hutchinson in the past, it was done sarcastically. Sorry!
When I read that Hutchinson may have seen his suspect in Petticoat Lane on SUNDAY morning, I wasn't thinking that he meant just two mornings AFTER Kelly's murder. I thought he meant A Sunday morning when the market was on. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll have a think about this some more today.
LEANNE
'If at first you don't succeed......get new batteries.!
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Just a thought!
Hutchinson came forward after "Her Majesty's Gracious Pardon" was issued. Perhaps he introduced the man to Mary, this would explain his detailed description of him. His fear of being an accomplice would explain why he didn't come forward sooner.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:14 am: | |
G'day Nina,
The pardon was offered 'to any accomplice, not being the person who contrived or actually committed the murder who gave information leading to the murderer's apprehension and conviction', on the 10th of November. That was still two days before Hutchinson came forward.
He never claimed to be an accomplice but could have if he was. That would have made his story more convincing, at least.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:17 am: | |
G'day,
I wonder if an accomplice had have come forward leading to the killer's conviction, would he have got a pardon as well as a reward?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on September 23, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi,
What i want to know is the remark' There are circumstances in this case, that were lacking in the others, that makes it more likely that the killer had a accomplice, who if not helped committ the deed, helped the killer afterwards'
A strange remark.
Richard. |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Perhaps he waited until after the inquest so he wouldn't have to answer certain questions in public.
Nina |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 57
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Sugden mentions this in chapter 14 "In the shadow of the ripper" page 299.
An anonymous letter was received on October 9. The writer claimed to be an accomplice to the killer and was asking for a free pardon.
Nina
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:10 am: | |
Hi Nina,
I have posted that exact Idea before and I believe that it is a good posibility that George had a diferent relationship with mary then he claimed. Lets speculate that you are correct and George was some sort of a pimp for Mary or maybe just someone who drummed up buisness for her. This circumstance would explain alot. It would explain the detailed description [as you pointed out.] It would explain what he was doing hanging around Kelly's so late at night and it would explain why he may have been reluctant to come forward to the police. Mary was scared of the ripper so it may make sence that she would have someone who she thought could protect her. There is a big problem with this theory. I do not believe the ripper would have gone through a pimp or let himself be set up with one of his victims by some one else. Someone who may be able to identifiy him later. I am sort of considering the idea that George did not see the ripper and the man he saw was not the ripper but just a client. The times George gives is odd. The ripper would of had to have been in Kelly's room for over an hour before killing her. I base this on the time not one but two people claimed to hear the cry of murder.[3:45am] It is possible that George was telling the truth and gave a accurate description of a man that Kelly was with. It is possible that he set her up with this man and George was some sort of pimp or security blanket for Kelly but it is also possible that Kelly went back out on the streets with out George knowing. I do not know how long it would take Kelly to undress and fold her cloths but I will estimate that she arrived back with jack around 3:30 and a few miniutes later Kelly was attacked. I do not believe the ripper would have waited a long time before killing her. Abberlines statement that no one ever got a good look at the killer would suggest that he did not believe the man that George saw was the ripper or he did not believe George's description. I believe Abberline was the man who interviewed Hutchinson. I think it is possible that George saw a man identified a man as accurate as possible but the man he saw was not the ripper.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Hi all,
I do not believe that anyone ever claimed the pardon. Of course the person claiming the pardon may not have wanted to go public. I believe the pardon was offerd because the police thought that some one had to know something about the killings. Thye believed that the ripper was being protected by family or someone in the community. They thought that the Jewish community was a close nit and they would not give up one of there own and they thought that someone may be hesitant to come forward because they feard pursicution. I do believe they thought that someone else knew something of the killings. This may very well play into the insane Jew theorys Cohen/Kosminski.
All the best,CB |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 1:36 am: | |
Hi CB,
I suppose that once again I haven't made myself clear. I don't believe that the man Hutchinson described was the ripper. But I believe that Hutchinson believed him to be and feared that he would be implicated.
Nina |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Nina.
I Do not believe that implication was hutchinsons concern, just simply relaying imformation to the police was his motive.
Lets face it , he was simply a guy who saw the last victim early morning, which may or may not have bearing on her killer. i am swaying to the possibility that she was back out on the streets after 3am, and then met her killer, who attacked and killed her shortly after they settled in her room around 345am-4am.
This has no bearing on my own beliefs over the past few years, but circumstances lead me to have different attitudes.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Ah Hi Richard and Nats!!!!!
Shall we all get together on Was MJK a Victim on MJK thread we seem to be on the same thread here!!!!
xx suzi
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi Nina,
Thanks for takeing the time to answer my post. You made yourself clear and I understand what you mean and I agree with you. I just ramble alot. Sort of like thinking out loud. I figure if I post a whole bunch of ideas someone is going to agree or diagree with something I post then I can clear a few facts up that I may have wrong.
Take care,CB |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
One more puzzling item that might be hard to explain.If the stranger that Hutchinson supposedly saw,left at some time after Three,and Kelly went out again and brought someone else to her room,why the lack of noise.How come the kitten in the room above didn't react in some way.
K elly was not known for her consideration of the neighbours.Earlier that night there had been complaints about the noise from her room.Yet one is asked to believe that she left and returned with company,that a door was opened and closed more than once,that voices and footsteps were that muted as to be inaudible,except for the footsteps at about 5.30.,and no one in the court heard a thing.Puzzles me anyway. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Hi Harry,
Good point but there were some neighbors who did not hear or see any thing at all. Earlier Kelly was disturbing the neighbors with her singing but I do not believe any more noises were noted by any of the neighbors untill the cry of murder around 3:45am. If one believes George then she brought someone home around 2:00am without making much of a disturbance. So why could she not bring someone home after 3:00am without causing a disturbance? I believe cats are suposed to have an ability to sence when something is wrong. [I am not an expert in this area.] but I will sugest that the cat probably would have become used to some noises such as people comming and going. I mught add I had a cat for 17 years and she did not make much noise at all cats are not like dogs. The cat probably was disturbed by the cry of murder as were someof the other people who lived in the building.
Take care,CB |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page