|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:33 am: |       |
I tried posting this on the Hutchinson thread but for some reason there was a glitch. It said there was some kind of error, and it was in maintenance mode and wouldn't let me post.
For years we have looked in disbelief at GH's description of Astrakhan Man because it seems too accurate and detailed. We scratch our heads when we find that Abberline actually believed GH.
There is one possible explanation. Two of the functions of the human brain are visual perception and visual memory. Visual perception is the ability of the brain to ingest, organize and understand the material sent to it via the optic nerve. It is a form of processing. Visual memory is the ability to store and retrieve optically received material efficiently and accurately.
Some people are inordinately gifted in this area. About three and a half years ago The Reader's Digest published an article about a man who works for the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Chicago. His job is to answer the phone when someone calls in wanting to know how to get from point A to point B. He has all sorts of computer programs and maps at his disposal which he hardly ever uses because he has memorized the entire metro map. There are people like this. We used to say they had photographic memory.
In puzzling over how I might find out if GH was one of these unique people it occurred to me that people tend to gravitate to professions where they can use their natural born gifts.
Mary's inquest records list GH as a horse groomer and labourer. The former might fit as a very meticulous horse owner might require a groomer who could pick up on the slightest speck of dirt in the horse's coat, the tiniest snarl in the mane, etc.
Labourer is vague and unsatisfactory. Is there any way to find out exactly what George did for a living both before and after Mary's death?
If we could establish GH as one of those unusually gifted in the areas of visual processing and visual memory, we might have to take Astrakhan Man more seriously. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Diana
Fantastic title for a thread!
Didn't GH claim to have spoken to a policeman, and afterwards, they couldn't find the policeman?
This makes me a bit dubious about his having photographic memory, or anything like that.
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
AAARGH! Do you realize what you just said?!?! A disappearing policeman? The night Mary died?  I'm gonna look this up! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
I just read Mr. Osborne's detailed analysis of GH's testimony in the dissertations. Couldn't find any policeman. Is there a source to cite for this? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi Diana
According to Bob Hinton in his book, Hutchinson said that he spoke to a policeman in the street the Sunday after the murder (i.e. the day before the inquest). Of course, he may have been lying about this, but if he was telling the truth and also had unusual visual abilities, you'd think they'd have been able to find the policeman.
As to the source, the incident doesn't seem to be
mentioned in GH's police statement, or in Abberline's report of 12 Nov, so I can only guess it's in a Press report somewhere.
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Well Osborne's analysis also listed some rather glaring errors for someone who had a gift in the area of visual processing. But just to nail it down, I still would like to know more about what he did for a living. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
Diana, on one of the threads - I think it's called 'The Real George Hutchinson?' - someone found a George Hutchinson, artist.
Unfortunately, George Hutchinson has been very hard to trace with any certainty.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 114
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi Diana, Robert,
The London Times of October 14 carries an interesting article regarding GH. Among other things GH says in this article: "...I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain." and if I remember correctly, this was what allegedly made him speak to the policeman Robert was referring to. I think GH contradicts himself a few times in this article.
All the best,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Thanks Frank
Yes, in this version GH overtakes the man before he meets Kelly. But this would only have given him a good view of his back.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Hi.
We really are a suspicious bunch, Hutchinson did exist, he did make a statement to the police, he did volunteer that statement, he did put himself at the scene of the crime, and he did tell the police the truth of what he saw, However, we do not know , whether or not , the full description was issued, or the police had a good reason to fabricate it.
Lets face it, any evidence, which the police may have felt, was a hot potato, would not have been released , in its true entirety, for fear of sending the offender to ground.
Think on this point.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"Yes, in this version GH overtakes the man before he meets Kelly. But this would only have given him a good view of his back."
This scenario must come from another article than the one from The London Times of October 14, because in this version he only adds things to his official statement, he doesn't change anything, as your post seems to suggest.
All the best,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Surely you mean November 14th? The statement says "As I passed Thrawl-st I passed a man standing at the corner of the street".
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 118
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You say we don't know whether or not GH's full description was issued by the police. We don't know that for a fact, that's true, but then again, could his description be any fuller? I don't think so.
So you want to have us choose between Hutchinson being the fabricator of his statement or the police being responsible for that. Answer me this then: what would the police gain - in the sense of getting closer to nailing the Ripper - by fabricating a statement?, and what would have been GH's own and true statement, which, according to you then, wasn't issued?
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Yes, sorry, of course I meant November 14th! What a stupid mistake, thanks for your attentiveness.
Frank |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
if our GH was an artist we are in a whole new ballgame |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 2:57 am: | |
Hi Frank.
My point is , the police were desperate to apprehend the Ripper, If the police had new imformation, which I believe they did, sorry to be vague here , but i cannot disclose precisely what I mean, then the last thing the authoritys would have wanted , was for the perpretrator to lay low, or alter his general appearence, for that would have put them back to square one.
I believe on the day of the murder of kelly, the police were aware of the general appearence of the man , who may have been responsible, because of this description, Barnett, was eliminated from enquirys, on the Monday, Hutchinson may have verified such an description to some extent, He may have told the absolute truth, which originaly would have baffled police, but the carrying of the parcel may have given them a explanation.
It is hard to give an explanation, without discussing our book to much, so I will just leave it , with 'All will be revealed'
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Hi Diana
If GH was an artist, and had super visual skills, why couldn't he find the policeman again?
Also, wouldn't he have been ideally placed to draw the man he saw for the police? Surely we'd have heard about it, if he'd done this.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 121
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Okay Richard,
You've made me very curious, but I will patiently wait for your book then!
Frank |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Hi Diana
Going back to your original post on this thread, you ask what did GH do for a living.
Whilst researching something else today in my local library I read in the HULL DAILY MAIL ( a provincial evening paper) that he was a groom. I must admit I do not recall reading that anywehere else, and I cannot say how acurate the reports of this newspaper would be, as they probably got their reports over the wire from London press agencies.
Regards,
John Savage |
Mr Chipps
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
GH address is given as Victoria Home, Commercial Street in Paul Beggs JTR The Uncensored Facts.
The Pall Mall Gazette dated 12 Jan 1889 runs the following article.
IS HE THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER
The Panama Star & Herald asks this startling question while recording a telegram from Elgin Illonis which runs. "Seven or eight years ago George Hutchinson, an inmate of Elgin Lunatic Asylum, was very handy with his knife. He delighted to visit the hospital slaughter house, and made many peculiar toys from bones. After escaping from Elgin he was captured at Kankakee. He escaped from that place, and murdered a disreputable woman in Chicago, mutilating her body in a way similar to the Whitechapel cases. He was returned to Kankakee, but shortly afterwards again escaped, and has been at large for three or four years.
This the first time I`ve posted so if this old ground sorry
Andrew |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 867
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
In light of some of the comments above, I thought it might be worthwhile posting below the full version of one of th press accounts of Hutchinson when he spoke to reporters. This is from the Pall Mall Gazette of 14th November. Interesting additions to his original statement include:
- he says in this account he saw the man before he saw Kelly
- he gives a stronger hint of how well he knew Kelly
- he admits to be on the streets all that night as he was locked out
- he states it was at the instigation of a fellow lodger that he went to the police station on the Monday to make a statement
- he mentions mentioning the sighting to a policeman as discussed above
I'm also including out of interest the Samuel Osborne story as the paper obviously is linking this finding of the knife with Hutchinson's man
Regards
Chris
Pall Mall Gazette (London)
14 November 1888
IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN WHITECHAPEL
A MINUTE DESCRIPTION OF THE MURDERER
Last evening a man named George Hutchinson, a groom, who is now working as a labourer, made the following statement to a reporter, and his description of the murderer agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning:-
"On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street, I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out, going down to Romford." She then walked on towards Thrawl street, saying, "I must go and look for some money." The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her, put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear; they both burst out laughing. He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly. They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer. The man was about 5ft. 6in. in height, and about thirty-four or thirty five years of age, with dark complexion, and dark moustache, turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan (sic), a white collar, with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a park of dark "spats" with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal, with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache, curled up, dark eyes, and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise. I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night. The man carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap around it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he left upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. I have been to the Shoreditch mortuary, and recognized the body as that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT?
A paragraph in the morning papers states that the police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20, Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something; but the man denied that the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel, and found that it contained a knife, having a peculiarly shaped handle and a thick blade, six or seven inches long, with stains upon it resembling blood. The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:36 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I Also find it rather strange , that the police, attached no importance to this report.
I would have imagined, they would have been convinced, that they were in poccesion, of the murder weapon, and one of the kid gloves, hutchinson saw his man carrying.
They were either playing down this story, or surely not, already had captured the killer by then.
There is of course another alternative, that some sicko, dropped the parcel intentionly, knowing someone was behind him, but again surely not...I must admit I am getting rather confused, have strange thoughts like, Was the astracan man 'Jack' but as i am a Barnett man,I must not go in that direction.
Regards Richard.
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 401
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Richard, I'm hoping that was a joke. If you start saying "I will not investigate anything which doesn't implicate Barnett" then you start moving into Cornwell territory.
However, with regard to this report, it must be remembered that the newspapers printed a lot of stories based on rumours and with no foundation, and the Pall Mall Gazette had an agenda of criticising the police at every possible opportunity and so would probably have pounced on any rumour which presented the police in a bad light. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi,
I think there can be little doubt that the story of Hutchinson telling a policeman about astrakhan man on the Sunday following the murder is a fabrication. In my opinion GH told this tale to offset the obvious question 'Why didn't you come forward earlier than Monday evening?'
Why do I think its a fabrication? In those days police officers walked a precisely delineated beat. The were marched to their beats by the sergeant and then took over from the officer they were relieving. (In fact I believe they were still doing it this way up to the 1960's.) They were not allowed to leave this beat for any reason.
So if GH had been telling the truth it would have been a simple matter to identify the officer he allegedly spoke to. All he would have to do would be to state where the officer was and at what time he spoke to him, and the identity would be established beyond question.
However strange to say the 'officer' couldn't be found!
all the best
Bob
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Dear Diana,
I've just read your initial post on this thread. While I agree with you that there are some people with incredible memories this doesn't apply here.
The example you cite of the mana working for a transport system only demonstrates that over a considerable period of time people can asorb the most incredible detail.
But that is not what hapened here. We are talking about a glance of less than a couple of seconds duration.
However even that is not really the point. It was not possible for GH to have seen the detail he claimed to have seen.
Take the description of the mans facial features. The man was wearing a brimmed hat, the light source was above him, the man ducked his head down, therefore his features would have been in deep shadow - yet GH describes his eyelashes!!
No way!
Bob |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
