Author: Diana
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 07:12 pm |        |
I just finished Mr. Wroe's wonderful book. The possibility that George Hutchinson was JTR had crossed my mind. Mr. Wroe is absolutely correct. Hutchinson's story is very suspicious.
My one reservation relates to G. F. Abberline. Abberline was a very experienced and capable detective. He spent two days in Hutchinson's company and spent hours interrogating him. Abberline was not stupid. I'm sure he considered the possibility that Hutchinson was JTR. He decided to accept Hutchinson's story. Abberline probably knew more than we do. We only have a summary to look at. On the other hand Mr. Wroe rightly points out that Sutcliffe fooled the police who interrogated him. All of us get tired or rushed or discouraged and make mistakes and I'm sure Abberline was no exception. Nevertheless I would like to know more about why Abberline decided to accept that ridiculous story. Maybe he knew one or two facts that made the story much more plausible? Facts that we are not privy to. |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 08:52 pm | |
Diana,
Just a silly thought. Maybe Abberline found out that Mary Kelly was not the woman in 13 Miller's Court?
Nobody really wants to accept that the Miller's Court victim was not Mary Kelly, but that would explain why Abberline wholheartedly accepted Hutchinson's statement and description. If Abberline was told that Kelly wasn't the victim, by Jospeh Barnett, then Hutchinson could not have killed her, being 'JTR', because she was not dead. In this instance Hutchinson was dewscribing the last man possibly seen with Kelly and Abberline's whole focus would have been on him.
Caroline Maxwell said she saw Mary Kelly with a man outside the Britannia pub at 9:00 A.M., who was dressed like a market porter. She couldn't see his face, or identify the man. This was probably Joseph Barnett, being told by Kelly that somone was killed in her room, and she was leaving for Ireland. Barnett was not brought in to identify the body, he WALKED OVER TO MILLER'S COURT, from a pub, claiming to have heard about a murder. If Abberline had broke him down and Barnett said the woman wasn't Mary Kelly, a lot gets explained.
It makes sense why they let Barnett go even though he had no alibi. It makes sense why the inquest was begun and concluded in one single day. It makes sense why Hutchinson's statement was accepted wholeheartedly by Abberline. It makes sense why a pardon was offered for any accomplice. It makes sense why the door was locked by the last person to leave, the last person being Mary Kelly. A lot of things start to make sense.
Remember, just a silly thought.
STAN |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 15 July 2002 - 09:28 pm | |
Hi Diana.
Wonderful book? Very flattering. But I do not think that Abberline was stupid. Far from it. And neither as far as I have been able to ascertain did Abberline spend days in Hutchinson's company. He interrogated him once in a session that commenced a little after 6:00pm on the 12th November and thereafter delegated to less senior detectives the responsibilities of the Kelly identification and the searches for the Jewish-looking suspect.
I might point out, too, that Hutchinson's story can be demonstrated to be untrue only once a comparison is made between his police statement and subsequent press claims. My belief, therefore, is that Abberline was so overwhelmed with work at this point that he probably never even read those Hutchinson-related newspaper reports. This situation, I further believe, was largely a consequence of the almost certain reality that the police were at this point more concerned with their own public image than catching the killer. Interestingly, this was a situation that was echoed almost a century later amid the Yorkshire Ripper manhunt, one that contributed to a police failure to spot obvious indicators which should have brought Peter Sutcliffe to justice long before he was eventually caught.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 01:57 pm | |
Hi Diana.
Just another thought on Abberline. John Douglas, as I'm sure you will recall from Chapter Seven, pondered over how many times offenders have come forward with fabricated stories in order to deflect suspicion away from themselves. The problem with such a situation is that it is (or was) beyond the experience of most police officers and therefore led to a tendency for the informant to be believed. You need only look at these message boards to appreciate the difficulty most people have with accepting the plausibility of such a scenario. But it does happen, and it happens with far greater frequency than might be imagined. So if, given our present understanding of the serial killer, latter-day detectives are fooled by such offenders, it is hardly surprising that Abberline was duped way back in 1888.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 02:43 pm | |
| Hutchinson's suspect is said to be too bizzare to be believed; however his bizarrness did not seem to have been an issue at the time.How would one describe a 'zoot suit' to youngsters of today.Here is a quote from W J Fishman's "Jewish Radicals":'During the whole life of the East End ghetto the familiar figure of the bookie, recognized at close quarters by his loud, outlandish clothes and rubicund bonhomie, could be seen working his pitch outside some corner shop'.Perhaps Hutchinson's suspect was a common individual type of the day.He was to look about to see if he could recognize him.Maybe Kelly was placing a bet with him?What say you?How did a bookie, familiar to those sreets look?Some experts in these parts surely know that. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 08:46 am | |
Hi
I don't agree with your comments about the descriptions (descriptions are always a problem anyway) but your also right in saying he was a familar type of his day and I suppose this is reasonable. I have been looking over the recent new boooklet by the Office Of Public Records and I have a copy of a letter supposedly written by the Ripper which says he was now 1888 in Philadelpyhia for some time? I never seen this letter before and not in any other books on the Ripper. I feel however that the first two letters were the only genuine ones anyway, and according to Tullys book the hand writing matches the hand writing of James Kelly. If we are ever going to get the identiy of this killer the handwriting may be one of the ways to do so. Descriptions in the books and otherwise are by and large mixed about the suspects. But the one thing that is consistent is that they say he's complextion is fair between the ages of 25 35 and wears a peaked cap (sometimes). This description matches the photo of George Chapman and James Kelly. One of MacNaughton's suspect was Chapman and according to Tully and offically as well the only woman hater on the loose at this time was James Kelly also. My money is on both these men there are some others but these two stand out well. Why?
Firstly Kelly did travel abroad and was working on a ship(s)he was therefore an itinerent. A witness already described a man during the double murder that one of the men seen looked like a sailor type. We all know that the murders were done on weekends and this is a clue also. The second incident was when a lady friend of Chapman found a large knife under some items in Chapman's room. I think under a pillow might be a important clue also. Kelly also lived for a time in and a around the dock area where is was put up by friends after his escape from Broadmoor. Chapmam knew the are well also.
I am sure that the Home Office and police of today are having a laugh at all of us slueths still looking for the Ripper. It will be interesting to see when the "secret files" nod and wink ones are opened in 2030. I am confident that we need not look for him in the Palace or in any doctors surgery or anywhere else. We need look for him as a lone itterent killer who knew the Whitechaple area very well indeed. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 10:07 am | |
David,
Valid point but I think most peoples problem with Hutchinsons statement is that it is too detailed.
I mean, a horseshoe tie pin spotted at night,under the dim glow of gaslight.
He gives too much information.
Monty
 |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 10:20 am | |
| Perhaps Hutchinson had seen bookies before at first hand and closer up and used that description imprinted in his mind.At least it doesn't have to be as bizarre as others have said it was.As I said gambling was an important part of East End life.I appreciate your reply since I don't exactly understand the first reply I got. |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 12:43 pm | |
David:
You might be interested in my post of 18 July 2002 in the thread "General Discussion: Ripper Victims: Was it really Mary Kelly in the room?: Archive through 26 July 2002".
Kellow Chesney, in "Victorian Underworld" gives an interesting description of a costermonger's "Sunday best" outfit. A little earlier than the period we're talking about (I think c. 1850 but he's not too specific) but it certainly gives lie to the idea that these people dressed in shabby cast-offs all the time.
As for the tie-pin, I find your point about this being a bookie's ornament most interesting. I suspect a tie-pin may well have been a common 'signifier' during this period (of occupation, social allegiance, politics/philosophy, etc). It may also have been something that people of the period would have paid great attention to, and hence just might explain Hutchinson's noticing it. By way of comparison, witness the careful description of hats that are almost always present in the eyewitness reports.
Monty:
I think it's quite possible that a shiny tie-pin, against dark clothing, would have been quite visible under gaslight, although Hutchinson may have been incorrect about the motif. (If indeed his statement is trustworthy, upon which I offer no comment.)
regards
timsta |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 01:32 pm | |
| Timsta-Thank you very much for the reference.it can be seen in two ways;Hutchinson may have been creating a figure that was a bookie as he knew him or else he saw what he saw and added a few details.it is interesting that the police did not think the descrition as bizarre.It is not beyond reason that Kelly was a customer and also McCarthy's grocery was on the corner.I agree with you that bizarreness may not fit thw common dress of some people in 1888.David |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 08:05 am | |
Timsta,
Thats my point.
A tie pin yes, but to go to such detail, whilst taking in every other aspect of this mans attire is truely outstanding.
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 11:37 am | |
| Maybe it was Hutchinson's intent to point out a certain type of individual.The point is that no body thought his description absurd or off the wall.He was taken seriously and not just to waste time on what they thought was out in left field. |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 06:05 pm | |
I know I am probably gonna ask a stupid question again, but is there any remote possibility of a trace of relationship between the British Hutchinson and the American one (Pall Mall Gazette, 01/12/1889, hey, you all know which one I'm talking about...)?
Just wondering...
JP |
Author: Howbrow
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 07:34 pm | |
| Any question asked by a fellow Philadelphian is NEVER a dumb one !!!!!!!!!Here's to the City of Brotherly Love !!!! |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 07:41 pm | |
| Now with the question asked--Did Hurchinson describe a non realistic character or one regularly seen on those streets.It makes no difference what you think of Hutchinson in this matter, but WAS HIS DESCRIPTION VALID whether he improved on what he saw or made it up or what.One of the arguments that Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper is that his description was bizarre and should have been seen through immediately. Thats one of the problems of these boards; the question gets buried in a mass of trivialities or cutesies.Was the person Hutchinson described real or riduculous? |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 07:44 pm | |
| Would someone tell me what is Mr Wroe's wonderful book so that I can get a copy?????????Is it still availiable? |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 08:48 pm | |
Hello David.
My book is entitled Jack the Ripper ... Person or Persons Unknown? and may be accessed free of charge on this site via Ripper Media/Non-fiction.
As for the Jewish-looking suspect, I firmly believe that Hutchinson made him up in order to justify his interest in Miller's Court. If I am correct, then it seems likely that Hutchinson's police description was based on a real person or a composite of two or more people. Whether I'm right or wrong in this respect, the description itself must have appeared plausible otherwise Hutchinson's version of events would never have been so readily accepted by Abberline and the gentlemen of the press.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 08:14 am | |
| Thank you very much for your reply. David |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:31 pm | |
Well, I am under the impression that anybody with a bit of imagination can make a faithful description of an imaginary character, based on two or three (to make him not too distinct, yet precise) persons he met sometimes -hey, I'm gonna take this-guy-I-met-at-the-pub's coat, then this guy's nose, and, hey, what's-his-name's pin, that's a great detail, that's looks real!
Then, gotta look dumb sometimes, so: Is There Any Relationship Whatsoever Between American Hutchinson And British Hutchinson?
By the way, thanks, Howard, you're not shooting me down in flames this time?  |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:52 pm | |
I finally got around to reading Garry's book, and overall I think the logic and presentation is quite solid.
Previously I hadn't really considered Hutchinson a suspect, but it makes sense now and seems plausible. While there isn't a lot in the way of positive evidence to incriminate him, his waiting until a witness reported seeing a suspicious man (that he knew was himself) before making a report himself, and then changing the details (assuming that he did this and it wasn't just the papers making things up) *is* eerily similar to the standard way criminals respond.
It's not just serial killers who do this when they feel something may have happened to link them to the crime, but regular killers and other criminals do too.
The fact of the matter is that Hutchinson never gave a *good* reason for being there in the first place. He couldn't be waiting around hoping to be the next customer because he already had told her beforehand he had no money. If he was worried about her, which he says he wasn't, he certainly would have come forward sooner. What *was* he doing for the 45 minutes he admits to standing outside in foul weather casing the place? The guy has stalker written all over himself, and, frankly, I don't know why I never noticed it before.
Regardless of whether he was or was not the ripper, I think the police believed him because they were looking for Jewish suspects and/or outwardly crazy people and he not only wasn't but offered a description of someone who was more in line with who they were looking for. I also think they were putting too much weight on descriptions and info regarding Stride's death. I was leaning against her being a Ripper victim, and Garry's reasoning why she probably wasn't seems to be the most thorough I've seen.
The only things Garry argues for that I am not sold on are that Tabram wasn't a ripper victim, that MJK's missing key was an important clue, and that the Lusk letter was genuine (I'm a cynic and tend to think the kidney wasn't even human).
I am not sure why Garry gives this book away for free, but it's the first one about the ripper I've read that has both impressed me with logic and rang true emotionally as well (the gut feeling criteria). Perhaps he believes it wouldn't stand out amongst other ripper books if published professionally.
Dan |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:11 am | |
Dan,
Well, if Garry believes his book doesn't stand a chance, he's right: you don't try to get a book published if you got such a boring suspect... (nuthing personal, Mister Wroe: I love that theory of yours and you're probably close to The Thruth. Or even right on spot. Who knows?).
You have to get something more impressive for the readers, for example a Royal Conspiracy. Or the Killer's Journal... Some theory that sells.
If you are just deducting something logical, from facts, introducing your normal SK, you don't stand a chance in the world of publishing.
JP |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:16 am | |
Hello Jean-Patrick.
Given the likelihood that Abberline would, purely as a matter of procedure, have endeavoured to catch Hutchinson out regarding his description of the Jewish-looking suspect, I feel that Hutchinson must have had a very clear mental picture of the man he was describing. As such, my belief is that the description was based on either a single individual or possibly two people. Any more than that introduces the probability that Hutchinson would have become hesitant and perhaps even confused. But the fact that Abberline came away from the interview absolutely convinced of Hutchinson's veracity suggests that there was no such hesitancy or confusion.
I personally spent something like ten years actively researching the British George Hutchinson amongst a variety of archives. Never once did I locate a place or date of birth or indeed any definitive information that would have allowed for the piecing together of his existence. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even convinced that George Hutchinson was this man's real name. So, unless anyone else has succeeded where I failed, there exists no tangible link between the British and American George Hutchinsons.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:37 am | |
Hi, Garry, and thanks for the answer.
You definitely know more than I do about the subject, so I believe you about Hutchinson getting "inspired" by only one or two people he knew.
And your theory is the one I read recently that sounds the best, and the best documentated (read Wilson as well, did you?).
And, as I said, "Nuthing Pers'nal, Guv'!" I was merely thrashing the other writers. The ones that write crap and got published...
Respectfully,
JP |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:43 am | |
Hello Dan and Jean-Patrick (again).
Sorry, I had completely missed your references to the book before I delivered the last posting. Anyway, thanks very much for your encouraging comments. And you are absolutely right, of course, about the publishing fraternity. Between 1995 and 1997 I offered the manuscript to fifty or more British publishers and not a single one of them showed any more than a cursory interest. But, having said this, I don't think that the furore surrounding the Maybrick book particularly helped matters. At one point I became so convinced that the specimen chapters were not being read that I subsequently dropped a tiny spot of superglue between two of the pages. When this submission was returned my suspicions were confirmed by the fact that the two pages had not been pulled apart. So, if ever you feel the urge to write your own Ripper book, my advice would be to include a time machine and a Bin Laden connection. Otherwise, forget it.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 01:10 am | |
Garry,
Hrm, yeah. It'd probably work.
Title: "Two Autumns of Terror"
Back cover blurb: After the attrocities of 9/11, the Americans tried to bomb Osama Bin Laden back to the Stone Age, but he only made it as far as Victorian England!
It's a bestseller with movie options for sure.
Still, if you wanted to try getting a revised copy of your manuscript published you might be able to self-publish some copies via a Print on Demand digital option. It's fairly cost effective for a limited number of copies, and can make more copies as needed if the sales come in. It's not like traditional publishing where you run off a thousand copies all at once. And you can get an ISBN number so that the chain stores can order it if they want. I can give you more details over email if you like.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 01:45 am | |
Hi Dan.
Thanks for the information on self-publishing. This is something I have recently discussed with both Stephen and Nick Warren. Unfortunately, because I have already spent something like £10,000 on this project, I am more than a little disinclined to spend another penny. But thanks for the suggestion, anyway.
Now, about that rolled-up page of the Koran found close to Chapman's body ...
Garry. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 08:28 am | |
Hi
Would anyone subscribe to the theory that maybe Burk and Hare had a hand in the ripper saga. They were body snatchcrs but non-the-less they did collect body parts for a certain doctor maybe dates might not match, any comments? They used to set upon prostitues and set them drunk and then strangle them. Maybe a new tread on these would be a good idea. The method of approach would match these men. Certainly the double murder would say something on this. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 10:57 am | |
By the time of MJK's murder, I think the police may have been so starved for a good description of the suspect that George Hutchinson slipped right through the radar, as did my favorite pet suspect, Barnett. I know that is selling Abberline short, but the man WAS human, and I imagine he was about to reach the breaking point with this case by the time of MJK.
Mr Wroe I have to admit I haven't had much reading time but I am so looking forward to devouring every word of your book! |
Author: John Dow
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 05:58 am | |
Hi James,
About Burke and Hare - Burke was executed in 1829 and Hare died in 1859.
Sorry
John |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 07:29 am | |
And, BTW, John, I was completely unable to find a death certificate for Hare when I went looking for one.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 12:51 pm | |
Hi, James Terence Kearney:
Although Burke and Hare were dead by the time of the Whitechapel murders, "burking" or the procurement of dead bodies or live ones to kill for medical purposes has been mentioned in this case. In fact, the American doctor that coroner Wynne Baxter alleged at the Chapman inquest had been going round to London medical schools trying to purchase specimens of women's uteruses to give out with a to-be-published monograph is part of this question of whether burking plays a part in the case.
James, if you look up "burking" in a keyword search of these boards and you will see that the matter has been discussed here before.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 07:00 am | |
Hello Everybody,
With regards to Hutchinson's description I seem to remember that some time ago two ideas were postulated. One, he was describing a bookie, seemed possible. But the other idea, he was describing a dressed tailor's dummy, also seemed logical.
One further point viz. clear mental pictures was a murder case stretching back to the 1970's. Here the prime suspect, and bear with me because the memory's not working too well today, used as his defence the fact that he had seen someone else. He gave a perfect picture of this unknown man, right down to describinghis headwear; a mirrored top hat no less!
It transpired that he was describing parts of the outfit worn by Noddy Holder, of that well known Brum pop combo Slade, as seen on Top of the Pops.
This alibi was finally broken down and the man was jailed.
Finally, on an inconclusive note, and apologies to Mr. Wroe, this "murderer's" conviction was deemed unsafe and he was pardoned a few years ago.
I'm sorry that I can't remember the names and facts.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 09:19 am | |
Hi Jim.
No apology necessary. Indeed, the example that you described in the above posting is typical of the way in which offenders (and publicity seekers) have tried to dupe police down the years. It is a cognitive strategy to which the psychologist Bartlett alluded as long ago as 1932. The same principle can be applied to creative writing. Many first-time authors encounter problems when they attempt write about something of which they have no direct experience. Hence aspiring novelists are advised to write about 'what they know.' Not only does this approach simplify the writing process, but the novel itself becomes much more believable. By extending this strategy, it isn't too difficult to understand how Hutchinson came up with his police description and why that description was so incredibly detailed. And for those who think it unlikely that Hutchinson would have come forward with a concocted story designed to deflect police suspicion in a false direction, the present murder investigation involving Ian Huntley may well prove to be of interest.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: James Terence Kearney
Friday, 23 August 2002 - 02:43 pm | |
HI
Burk and Hare was just an idea a long shot but one- the- less interesting. I still can't get info on my pet suspect Jame Kelly except the book prisoner 1167. Hutchinson, Chapman and Kelly form a very interesting triangle. Barnett is also interesting because recently a murder case in Dallas some years ago a landlord was caught for the killings of three prostitutes and cutting out their eyes. So he could in theory be considered a suspect also. The killer had been entering the prostitutes flat and making friends amoung other things with the women... get my drift... Mary Jannette Kelly for example. I still believe that the answers to the whole case is Kelly herself. |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 07:46 am | |
Mr. Garry Wroe,
I can't find your book on the Casebook site, bearing in mind it takes me several attempts to work the pedal bin, so could you provide a link or an address for the other old buffers like me that can't keep up with technology.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 09:32 am | |
Hi Jim.
You can access the book by clicking on the following link:-
Person or Persons
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 06:30 am | |
Hello Garry,
Fingers crossed, I've downloaded your book and now look forward to reading it.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 11:05 am | |
Hi Jim.
Hope you enjoy it.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Richard C Evans
Saturday, 31 August 2002 - 04:11 pm | |
Throughly enjoyed Garry's book.Would also recommend Bob Hinton's "From Hell"(no connection to film or comic),which also puts forward an excellent case against Hutchinson.
It's listed in Ripper media on this site,
Cheers,
Rich |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 31 August 2002 - 07:20 pm | |
| Many thanks, Rich. Pleased you enjoyed it. |
