|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:58 am: | 
|
Hi,
Hutchinsons statement, has always been heavily debated on these boards.
Simply because of the highly overdone description given.I have given an explanation to this , by describing a possible scenerio, where the man was dressed for the Lord Mayors event that morning, however, common sense does suggest that this would be highly unlikely.
But the fact remains that Hutchinsons statement, was released.
question.
Did hutchinson actually report to the police on monday evening the 12th november, and actually say those words, or did the police, for reasons thought best by them invent the whole statement?.
What concerns me is, hutchinson received one hundred shillings [ five pounds] for his cooperation, was this hugh sum out of police funds, the rate for a couple of nights patrolling with a police officer?.
Over four weeks wages, for a few hours work...
if such a payment was granted, it was because of hutchinsons attitude in assisting the police, possibly regarding that statement.
I Believe it is a great possibility that the police knew, that kelly was killed in the morning, who is to say that hutchinson did not view kelly in the morning light , with a man, if one could consider that the whole statement was invented , so that the killer, of kelly in the morning , would believe the police thought she was killed in the night hours, and give him a false sence of security.
The statement issued after kellys death' that there were circumstances in this murder, that were lacking in the others, that makes it more likely that the killer, had a assistant, who if not carried out any attack , may have assisted him afterwards' may suggest, that it would have been more likely, for the murder to have been committed during daylight hours.
The whole issue of hutchinsons statement concerns me, if the statement was made up by the police,and hutchinson agreed to sign it, it would explain a lot.
I Feel hutchinson made a statement, that the police felt was relevant, but that statement will never be known.
Richard.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi,
Just an afterthought, The police would have known that Mrs Lewis made a statement,seeing a man ouside crossinghams that morning , and could have placed hutchinson as that man, in the statement, and invented the whole statement around that sighting.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 378
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:59 am: |
|
Hi Richard,I have read in the past weeks of various differences reported by the press and stated at the inquest that people have and may not have meant to say differently.
Like you I have thought that Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly and thought this was more to do with friendly exchange than anything else.However I have revised some of my thinking on GH.I now think that learning of Mary being on her own
he may have seen his chance in more wats than one;
Would she let him kip there now
Could they help each other out-he could keep an eye open for any odd types etc
That that night there was no time to talk about any of it as Mary was needing to get the money for the rent
That he did watch the room-hoping to have a place
to go to from the rain at least-better to sit nattering to Mary on a cold wet November night
than walk the streets till dawn-he could maybe fit in between clients
That instead after waiting for ages Mary and tha man seemed to have bedded down for the night
Now he may have seen nothing that strange about that---until he heard that she had been murdered.
Eventually he plucks up the courage to spill it all out to Abberline.
Abberline has inside information that it might be a toff
He presses Hutchinson for detail and then gets cracking with both Hutchinson and officers to try to catch the toff
The thing is that not long after MJK"s murder
the police presence was significantly reduced
Why?
they had intensified it after the others
I still believe that the police may have THOUGHT they knew who they were looking for and this chap answered that description
maybe after Druitt was found drowned[the toff]
Kosminski and David Cohen "detained"-one way or another
They just thought they had caught their man and it was they thought one of these[and maybe there were more JtR"s in Whitechapel that Autumn and copycat killings were part of the scene.
Best Natalie |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Richard,
Once again you are making statements that you ask us to accept as fact. You say for example:
What concerns me is, hutchinson received one hundred shillings [ five pounds] for his cooperation, was this hugh sum out of police funds, the rate for a couple of nights patrolling with a police officer?.
Where does this come from? From a book which has been widely discredited as being largely innaccurate and the result of a hoax.
This statement originates from someone who says he was the son of the GH. There is absolutely nothing to support this, in fact there is a great deal of pointers to suggest that this statement was not made by the GH.
For any of this to be accepted as important you must establish that it was said by the GH to his son - and this you cannot do. As I have said before many times evidence must comprise of links and each link must join together to form a chain - you cannot pick something out of mid air with no corroboration whatsoever and say this is my starting point.
This is exactly the mistake that Cornwell made, she busied herself trying to prove a link between the Ripper letters and Sickert without first showing a definite link between those letters and the killer, therefore her endeavours in this matter are worthless.
If you wish for statement made by a man purporting to be the GH's son to carry any weight you must show that first of all it is the right GH and then show that he told the absolute, unvarnished truth - and that is impossible!
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
I am not making a statement, that is fact, The sum of five pounds, was not only mentioned in the book, but was also mentioned in the Radio four programme in june 72, by the reputed son of GH.
i would guess that it was Reg.
I started this thread, to offer a different approach, I feel that there is no valid reason , to suggest hutchinson never made a statement, but I believe that Taking in account the statement was tampered with, it is entirely possible , that the statement was fabricated by the police , in a desperate attempt to apprehend the perpretrator, and for his cooperation, in agreeing to this, and attempting to identify the person he really saw, he was paid the then huge sum of five pounds.
His son Reg, said his father always stuck to the same story of a toff, but it would appear that he liked to disclose the police paid him that large sum, summing up it is entirely possible, although going against the grain.that he saw kelly that morning at a time not relevant to that statement, quite possible daylight hours along with other sightings, but he mayby saw her, entering the court with a man, when others didnt,and so to protect that imformation, the famous statement was introduced, and placed hutchinson, on the spot Mrs Lewis saw a man loitering, in a frustrated effort, not to reveal to the killer, their new line of enquiry.
Regards Richard. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I must go along with Bob on this one. He has his finger on the pulse, so far...but still along way to go!
If anyone had chutzpah it was our Hutch...and god knows, Jack the Ripper had plenty of that too.
Rosey :-) |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 22
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hey Richard,
Like Bob said, why do you always bring up the interview?
If "his son" claimed that Jack the Ripper was George, then would you then be going against him instead of supporting him like you are doing off an interview that has really no relevance.
Peter |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hello,
Maybe while GH was waiting outside Miller's court (for whatever reason) he saw JTR come out with blood on his clothes. JTR then threatens GH, who decides to stay quiet (maybe they even knew each other). But then GH finds out he has been spotted by Mrs. Lewis (or thinks he was) and decides to talk to the police, so that he will not be considered a suspect. But, he is still scared that if he gives an accurate description, JTR will get him before the police will get JTR. So, GH makes up an outlandish description so that JTR will not come after him.
The police are so desperate to find the killer, that they believe GH.
Yes that is outlandish, but it could have happened.
In a case filled with what ifs, this is as plausible as anything.
Vlad |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 9:18 pm: |
|
ignoring for the moment the implausibility of Hutchinsons statement, if it were true then Jack would have had good reason to stop killing in Whitechapel afterward. Hutchinson says he peered right into Jack's face and could identify him easily. Maybe that part is true and if so it would explain why the killings stopped. Jack betook himself elsewhere with London being too hot for him. |
jkish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
yes i think its true that hutchinson identifyed him very well and thats why the killings stopped.or he could have been himself,very well.cause it took him awhile to come forward.i find it very fishy. |
j kish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
hi can anybody tell me about the letter or note was found after mary's death.also how long after it was found.indicating the murders have stopped. thanks |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 240
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
On the night of the killing,Hutchinson says he saw a man go with Kelly into her room.He memorises both the clothes of this person and his facial features,and is able to describe both in detail to Aberline on the monday evening.He states at that time he could recogniise the person if seen again.
However,on sunday,just over a day after the first sighting,he states he believes he saw the man again,but wasn't sure it was him.So what happened to his memory on that occasion,and was it the clothes he thought he recognised or the facial features,and why if it was so clear to him monday evening,how to explain the lapse on the sunday?.
If HUtchinson was lying to Aberline,it would explain itself. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3360
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
j kish-
Letter?????Note???? -
am I missing something here?
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
G'day,
A read of the book 'Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell' by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, (which contains transcriptions of all Ripper correspondence held in the Public Record Office London), tells me that no letter indicating that the Ripper murders had stopped was ever received.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 08, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
