|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 09 September 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
The British George Hutchinson:
Archive through 09 September 2002
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 12:16 pm |        | My views on Hutchinson are as follows, and please feel free to rake them over the coals.
Sarah Lewis admitted in her statement of 9 November, that she could not even describe the man standing next to Crossingham's Lodging House. It seems unlikely, then, that her testimony at the inquest would have been a sufficient threat to make the man come forward and contact the police.
Further, she changes her tune slightly, and gives a vague description at the inquest. The man was 'not tall--but stout.' Does this describe Hutchinson? We don't know. But notice that Hutchinson describes his suspect as 5' 6" and then says that he 'stooped down and looked him in the face', which might well suggest that Hutchinson was substantially taller than 5' 6" [whether the description was imaginary or not], in which case it would be doubtful that he fits the description of the Crossingham's Lodging man described by Lewis.
Now, as Douglas points out, there have been cases of murderers 'injecting' themselves into an investigation. But I have to wonder...how common is this? What are the statistics? I can certainly name one or two examples of this happening, but there are many more where it didn't happen. In the Whitechapel case, we have a full plate of people coming forward...D'Onston, Schwartz, etc..and their stories cannot be corroborated.
The description given by Hutchinson to Abberline is not particularly outlandish. Abberline believed him. It is only when Hutchinson is interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette& etc. that his description borders on the improbable. But remember Matthew Packer. 'Mr Packer when asked by the police stated that he did not see any suspicious person about, and it was not until after the publication in the newspapers of the description of man seen by the P.C. that Mr. Packer gave the foregoing particulars,'etc. etc. The presence of a newsman might well loosen the tongue. A certain amount of local fame would have fell upon Hutchinson, and he might have warmed to his task once the reporters starting coming around.
Finally, in cases where the murderer turns out to be a local man, there is often some inkling that the man had a bad reputation among the local women, was known perhaps as a sadist or had some run-ins with the law. If any there were any local suspicions [or police suspicions] against Hutchinson, they have not trickled down to us. Even if Hutchinson's story is a complete fabrication, it doesn't necessarily suggest he was involved in the Kelly murder. Bruce Paley, for instance, suggests that Hutchinson was a Packer-like fellow that made the story up in order to gains some local fame.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Hi RP.
You are quite correct in asserting that the various descriptions attributed to Sarah Lewis were contradictory. And on a superficial basis, these descriptions in themselves were so vague that they hardly appear threatening. But if, just for the sake of argument, we assume that Hutchinson was the Whitechapel Murderer, he would have been only too aware that the evidence of Joseph Lawende had been deliberately underplayed by the police 'in the interest of justice.' So how was Hutchinson to know that the police were not adopting an identical strategy regarding Sarah Lewis? For all Hutchinson knew, Sarah may have provided Abberline with a finely detailed description. If so, what if she could identify him? What if she knew him? What if, on the basis of this description, Abberline was preparing for a swoop on local lodging houses? Such considerations, I would suggest, would have represented a clear and immediate threat to Hutchinson.
It is also true that Sarah described the man she saw as stout and not very tall. And Hutchinson did, as you correctly stated, estimate the jewish-looking suspect's height at about 5' 6". So if Hutchinson was short, why would he stoop down to 'look him in the face'? Because, as Hutchinson's police statement makes clear, the Jewish dandy 'hung down his head with his hat over his eyes'. In other words, the brim of the hat was obscuring Hutchinson's view of the man's face. Moreover, the artist's sketch of Hutchinson (which may be found in Person or Persons) clearly depicts a man who, just as Sarah Lewis had contended, was both short and stout.
As far as I am aware, there are no official data as to the number of offenders who have insinuated themselves into a police investigation. I have come across a few dozen cases where this can be said to have occurred. Yet there may be hundreds of other instances where the offender has successfully fooled the police simply because, as John Douglas postulates, the investigators didn't know what to look for. In a recent TV interview broadcast shortly after the arrest of Ian Huntley, former Flying Squad officer John O'Connor stated that he has encountered the injection scenario "many, many times." Ultimately, however, the issue of quantity is irrelevant. The important factor here is that certain offenders are known to have injected themselves into ongoing investigations. As such, the notion that Hutchinson did likewise in order to engender investigative confusion must be regarded as at least theoretically plausible. And whilst you cited D'Onston and Schwartz as examples of witnesses whose stories lacked corroboration, and whose claims might thus be regarded as every bit as suspicious as Hutchinson's version of events, Hutchinson is unique in that he was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder.
You are absolutely correct, of course, in stating that, although Hutchinson may have been a liar, this does not make him a murderer. But given the nature of his story, as well as his presence directly outside Mary Kelly's room at 3:00am, Hutchinson must be viewed as a prime suspect.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 11:42 pm | | Garry--Hi. Thanks for the response. As Martin Fido once wrote to me on another thread, please don't think my opinions are meant as an 'absolute refutation' of yours. That isn't the case. You have put a lot of thought into this, and I can only agree that Hutchinson is a person of interest. I am only hesitant about considering him a 'prime suspect.'
However suspicious we might find Hutchinson's actions that night, our suspicions have to be mitigated by the fact that Abberline evidently didn't find them particularly odd. Notice this is different from saying that he didn't find Hutchinson odd or suspicious. [You might certainly be right, for instance, in saying that he was capable of fooling the police] But that's an entirely different proposition. What I tend to assume from Abberline's report is that he didn't find Hutchinson's behavior particularly odd--ie., he didn't find it as unusual for a single man to be loitering around the streets of Whitechapel at 3:00am as one might suppose.
In addition, isn't there an inherent paradox here? If one wishes to accept as fact that Hutchinson is the man seen by Sarah Lewis, that's o.k. But she confirms that "Hutchinson" was 'looking up the Court as if waiting for someone.' If Hutchinson's man is entirely a fabrication, then who is he waiting for? As remarkable as we might find his story, it seems to me that her statement tends to corroborate Hutchinson more than it tends to incriminate him. Unless there is another explanation.
Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 01:33 am | | RJ,
What paradox? Sarah Lewis says the man was looking up the court. She walks up the court and sees MJK and the blotchy-faced man. The unidentified man could easily have been watching MJK. That matches up with Hutchinson's later admission that he was hanging around outside for a long period of time trying to see what was going on with her.
I suppose he could have been planning to meet somebody outside in the rain in the middle of the night away from his lodging house to do something that required no money. And I suppose he could have gotten bored waiting for so long for this person who never showed up, so was interested in knowing what was going on with this woman he says he knew and looked through the window and then just left. And I guess that upon hearing that one of the most gruesome murders ever in the history of the world happened to his supposed friend or acquaintance at the spot he was hanging around he decided to not come forward until after the inquest to report that he supposedly saw someone who would be an extremely likely candidate for the killer and then changes the story a couple different times.
Yes, I grant, that's all possible. It just sounds very fishy.
Why didn't Abberline consider Hutchinson a suspect? Maybe because he was looking for a foreigner or Jew. Maybe he assumed that the killer would be a madman whose mental defects would become obvious during a discussion. Maybe he was as incompetent as the public thought he was.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 07:11 am | | Hi RJ.
Please forgive me if my previous reply conveyed a spirit other than that which was intended. In actuality, I welcome the fact that you are looking at Hutchinson with objectivity and intelligence, just as I welcome any criticisms or comments that you'd care to offer.
The points you raise regarding Abberline are pivotal in any attempt to rationalize Hutchinson's status as a viable suspect. That Abberline believed Hutchinson's version of events is confirmed by the official case files. Hutchinson's story was simply that he had returned from Romford without the money for a bed and so resolved to walk the streets to kill time. He met Kelly shortly before 2:00am and then looked on as Kelly was propositioned by the Jewish-looking punter. Kelly and companion then went to Miller's Court. Hutchinson's incredulity that such a distinguished individul would consort with the likes of Mary Kelly inflamed his interest to the point that he followed them back to Miller's Court, where he waited for the next hour. When at 3:00am neither Kelly nor her pick-up had emerged from the room, Hutchinson wandered away. This is essentially the story that Hutchinson related to Abberline on 12th November. On a superficial level, it seems plausible, if a little eccentric. My belief is that Abberline simply took it at face value. Irrespective of his reputation as a more than able detective, Abberline had no insight into the psychology of the serial killer and probably never countenanced the notion that a murderer would have the nerve to come forward with a fabricated story in order to deflect police suspicion in a false direction. Abberline's rationale at this point must have been simply to determine whether Hutchinson was either telling the truth, mistaken or seeking publicity.
We know, of course, that Abberline did believe Hutchinson. This is understandable. Less easy to understand is the reality that, over the next twenty-four hours, Hutchinson-related newspaper features began to surface - features in which Hutchinson blatently contradicted his earlier police statement. Now, irrespective of whether Hutchinson was or was not the Whitechapel Murderer, these contradictions should have been noted by the police and Hutchinson should have been re-interviewed, if only for clarification. But this never happened. One can only surmise that these contradictions were overlooked. Abberline was, after all, under immense public, press and political pressure at this juncture and probably lacked the time (and possibly the inclination) to read these press reports. So the issue here, to my way of thinking, isn't that Hutchinson's original story was believed, it is the reality that his subsequent contradictory statements went unchallenged.
Returning to the night of Mary Jane's death, she was seen entering her room shortly before midnight accompanied by a blotchy-faced man who carried a pail of beer. Kelly remained in her room and was heard singing at approximately 1:00am. My belief, therefore, is that Hutchinson was not awaiting the Jewish-looking punter when seen by Sarah Lewis at 2:30, but rather Blotchy Face. So there is no paradox. The Jewish dandy didn't exist. He was invented merely to rationalize Hutchinson's preoccupation with the interconnecting passage (as observed by Sarah Lewis). Why this should have been the case is, however, an entirely different question.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 11:19 pm | | Dan--But Sarah Lewis didn't walk up the Court and see Blotchy-faced man. Blotchy hadn't been seen for 2 hrs and 45 minutes--when Mrs. Cox saw him at 11:45 PM.
Now am I to believe that a man that had committed 3 or 4 [or more] previous murders with a certain amount of suddeness & stealth, walked into Miller's Court between 1 A.M. and 2:29 A.M., found the room occupied by Blotchy & Kelly [there is no evidence that they were there, I might add] and then return to Dorset Street and stand in plain view of the passing foot traffic for who knows how long, hoping the client will leave? This doesn't seem likely, and far more improbable than Hutchinson's own strange tale.
The bottom-line is that there is nothing in the testimony of either Lewis or Cox that is inconsistant with Hutchinson's story.
And although I don't want to sound contentious, the hypothetic questions you ask about Abberline in your last paragraph can be answered by the historical record. He was not incompetent, and he was not focussed on a Jewish or Foreign suspect. In fact, in general, I think the most dangerous misconception in regards to the Whitechapel crimes is that the Victorian police were unsophisticated & inept. I don't believe this.
Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 11:53 pm | | R.J.,
I reread back through the Sarah Lewis testimony and it appears that when I wrote the previous post I had scrolled wrong somehow and combined her testimony with anothers. You are right, she did not see Blotchy Face.
As far as being stealthy, the previous murders were outside and required it. I would think that if Jack the Ripper were planning on killing someone inside, knowing that'd give him the time to finally do the full ripping job he wanted, that if the perfect opportunity presented itself he would have waited a long time to do it. Heck, the gap between Eddowes and Kelly was already the longest, a few hours more would be no big deal. And there's nothing to say that he was necessarily standing in plain view that whole time.
There's nothing in other testimony that contradicts Hutchinson, but he certainly did a fine job contradicting his own statements.
You may choose to believe that the police were not incompetent, but that's a far cry from saying that they were so ultra-competent that they would have assuredly been able to identify an organized serial killer if they had interviewed him.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 06:53 am | | Hi RJ.
You make a pertinent observation in the final paragraph of your previous post when stating your belief that the Victorian police were neither unsophisticated nor inept. On the whole, I tend to agree with you. But I would, if I may, like to draw your attention to an interesting parallel. In the modern era, George Oldfield was generally regarded as an experienced and highly competent detective. Having successfully solved dozens of murder cases and brought a terrorist gang to justice, Oldfield went on to head the Yorkshire Ripper inquiry. Quite simply, the investigation descended to the level of farce. There were many, many shortcomings. But the factor that debilitated the investigation more than any other was Oldfield's obdurate belief that the man who is now known to posterity as the Geordie Hoaxer was, in fact, the real killer. Despite subsequent denials by those leading the manhunt, an internal memo was circulated that effectively instructed the copper on the ground to disregard any suspect who did not speak with a Geordie accent. Indeed, a friend of mine was pulled in with alarming regularity and subjected to intense (and intrusive) police questioning. This man had no criminal record and was not a violent type. On the contrary, he was a hard-working, devoted family man. But he spoke with a Geordie accent. Meanwhile, of course, Peter Sutcliffe, a man who spoke with a Yorkshire rather than a Geordie accent, continued to kill with what amounted to police-sanctioned impunity.
The lesson here is that, if one were to expunge the Yorkshire Ripper investigation, George Oldfield would be regarded as a detective of considerable prowess. In reality, however, his career will be forever tainted by his failings regarding the Sutcliffe inquiry.
As with Oldfield, Abberline enjoyed a sparkling reputation. He too had distinguished himself with many investigative successes. But then came Jack the Ripper. Unlike Sutcliffe, the Whitechapel Murderer has never been identified. As such, we cannot know for sure whether this investigation, too, was bungled. Yet one has only to examine the way in which Hutchinson was handled to discern something extremely remiss. Fundamental police procedure dictated that Hutchinson ought to have been re-interviewed on the publication of his contradictory newspaper statements. This, apparently, did not happen. And given that Hutchinson was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder, the reality that Joseph Lawende (as well as other eyewitnesses) was never brought in to look him over is, quite frankly, beyond my comprehension.
So whilst I have no doubt that, just like Oldfield, Abberline was a singularly able detective in the face of more quotidian criminality, there is something about a serial killer manhunt that affects the judgement of even the best of detectives.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 07:22 am | | Hello Everybody,
RJ, you wrote, "As remarkable as we might find his story, it seems to me that her statement tends to corroborate Hutchinson more than it tends to incriminate him. Unless there is another explanation."
If Hutch was the person seen by Sarah Lewis, which is plausible, we need to consider just why he should come forward. After all, "blotchy faced man" never made his presence known, did he?
So why should Hutch jeopardise his own position by placing himself in the right place at roughly the right time? Why did he even come forward to the police? Why does his description not match that of other possible witnesses? Could it be, and this is pure speculation, that Hutchinson was placed in a situation whereby he felt jeopardised? After all, he was seen hanging around Miller's Court as if waiting upon someone.
So the essentials of his story may be accurate. The last person to leave with Kelly, though, was probably pure fiction. It is my less than considered opinion that Hutchinson knew who the killer was therefore he had to protect his own position, which he did do, by inventing a mysterious character, and, essentially, protected the identity of the killer.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 07:33 am | | Garry (Wroe),
there doesn't seem to be anything finished about Barnett's interview either. Okay, he was cleared by the "police", but how? why was he deemed to be innocent?, the evidence doesn't make him innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt, does it?. Maybe he should have been interviewed again. I shall always wonder why Abberline didn't confront Lawende with Barnett, thinking back to Lawende's sighting at Church Passage
Rick |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 07:37 am | | Garry,
You make a valid point about George Oldfield. In many ways the recorded Geordie Hoaxer's message was like a technological evolution from letters written in red ink. "Hello George" an aural equivalent of "Dear Boss" perchance?
I can well remember the importance the police placed upon that particular message. It subsequently transpired that some senior members of the police had no faith in the veracity of the tape so I would shy away from your distinction of "police-sanctioned impunity".
It's also interesting to bear in mind that Sutcliffe was interviewed several times. That a bank note was traced to a batch issued to his work. That an identikit picture which resembled him was released. And still he could continue killing.
Maybe "police-sanctioned impunity" isn't so far off the mark after all!
Thanking you.
Jim Leen.
P.s. I've not had the time to read your book but I intend to do so at the earliest chance I can. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 12:12 pm | | Hi All,
I wonder if we'll ever know more about the Geordie Hoaxer. Some think he may have been responsible for the Preston murder (Joan Harrison?) that I don't think was ever pinned on Sutcliffe. If so, we'd have a very interesting specimen to consider - the killer who targets an individual policeman with his taunts and fancies himself as the author of another killer's work.
Talking about the identikit picture of Sutcliffe, I've lost count of the number of 70s photos I've seen over the last twenty years, of men with hairstyles and 'face furniture' that made them, in their younger days, look uncannily like the Yorkshire Ripper. 
Perhaps we should remember that, before assuming with 21st century eyes that anyone who looked like the identikit ought to have stood out like a sore thumb.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 04:24 pm | | Hi Rick.
You could be right about Joe Barnett. But, if memory serves me correctly, he was interviewed at length by Abberline and his alibi corroborated by those at Buller's lodging house. Frankly, I'm not one of those who has a great deal of time for the Barnett-as-Ripper hypothesis. I tend to regard him as one of the killer's abstract victims, as were all of the victims' loved ones. But I do agree that Lawende and possibly even Schwartz should have viewed him, if only to dispel any lingering doubt concerning his veracity.
Hi Jim.
What I meant by 'police-sanctioned impunity' was that it was widely believed by police officers and civilians alike that those portions of the Geordie communications to which only George Oldfield and a handful of senior detectives were privy contained information that could have been known only to the killer. So when Oldfield stated it as his categorical belief that the sender of the letters and tape was indeed the killer, few people had reason to doubt him. Then, of course, came the order to exclude any suspect who did not speak with a Geordie accent. Shortly after this directive was issued, Sutcliffe was again interviewed by police but was dismissed as a suspect on the basis of his Yorkshire accent. In other words, because of this directive, Sutcliffe could not be considered a viable suspect and was therefore able to continue killing with virtual impunity.
Hi Caz.
Although Sutcliffe admitted under police interview to many crimes - even some which police had hitherto believed unconnected with the Ripper killings - he was adamant that he was not responsible for the Joan Harrison murder. There was talk some years ago about running a DNA comparison between the semen found on/in Joan's body and the saliva recovered from one of the hoax letter envelopes. The problem here, however, is that, as a prostitute, Joan had 'entertained' somewhat liberally on the day of her death, so it was considered that a DNA analysis would be of little help. This, though, is no longer the case since it is now possible to separate the DNA of multiple donors. But even if a DNA link is established between the Harrison murder and the Geordie Hoaxer, it still brings police no nearer to identifying him.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 02:42 am | | Hi Garry,
Unless perchance they have the same DNA on a data base somewhere, if the man has a criminal record?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 04:16 am | | Hi Caz.
You are absolutely right about the DNA database. And, touching upon something to which Jim alluded in an earlier post, the terminology used in the hoax letters and tape were noticably analogous with the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky correspondence, a point that was certainly brought to the attention of George Oldfield. Yet still he continued to believe in the veracity of the Geordie communications. Perhaps some of the more inflexible contributors to these boards ought to take note.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 04:52 am | | Hello Everybody,
First of all the Geordie Hoaxer, I seem to remember some years ago an author claimed he knew the nefarious type's identity. (Sounds familiar!)
He claimed that the man had admitted a series of killings, some of which Sutcliffe had already been sent down for, and he attempted to get this "confession" on tape.
Now this is where it descends into farce. The author offered the wacko £50,000 to repeat the claims. When said money wasn't paid over the strange fellow withdrew his claims and promptly disappeared.
Whether the Geordie Hoaxer was guilty of murders per se, he should still have been hounded down for his part in allowing Sutcliffe to remain at liberty and the tragic consequences that followed.
With regard to the topic of this board, Hutchinson may have well have been a common or garden hoaxer who wanted his name in the newspapers. But he could have been something slightly more sinister.
I don't think Barnett is a plausible Ripper candidate. I think he is a plausible candidate for the murderer of Mary Jane though. Why? Well here's another strange little tale, a seeming non sequittor too, I grant you.
Some years ago a man, a butcher no less, killed his son. To this day he still has, or claims to have, no recollection of the event. Now the attack was extremely brutal, the boy's head was nearly severed. But, get this, it happened in the butcher's back garden. All the neighbours phoned the police, the prosecution had 39 or so eye witnesses, yet the family butcher still has no memory of the attack whatsoever.
So how does this implicate Barnett? Well, frankly, it doesn't. However, one can surmise that Barnett may have killed in passion (sic) yet still be able to offer testimony to the police, the coroner etc.
Circumstantially, as he knew Kelly, Hutchinson may have known Barnett. Playing the old pals act he may have offered up a Yiddish fop, quite in line with public fears, to get his chum off the hook.
Or I could be extremely mistaken and, as usual, am inventing fiction where facts should reside. But, then again, the subject matter is so ripe for plucking myth from murder.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 06:15 am | | Hi Jim.
Fascinating story about the Geordie Hoaxer - one that I'd not previously heard. It reminds me of a tale related by the true crime author, the late Brian Marriner, who for a lengthy period corresponded with a man who had made it his life's mission to establish Sutcliffe's innocence. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Brian added, 'I fear for his eventual sanity.'
I also recall the story of the woman who had for many years worked in a transport caff purportedly frequented by Sutcliffe. Often he was accompanied by a small man who, according to this woman, spoke with a distinctive, sibilant Geordie accent. On hearing what turned out to be the hoax tape, the woman became convinced that the Geordie Hoaxer was Sutcliffe's companion. After researching this claim, a journalist postulated the theory that the Hoaxer had colluded with Sutcliffe in order to throw the Ripper investigation into confusion and thereby deflect suspicion away from Sutcliffe. Maybe, just maybe, this unknown accomplice also wrote a diary. So perhaps one day all will be revealed.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 03:13 pm | | Gentlemen--One thing worth remembering is that Abberline's opinion of Hutchinson is only a 'snap-shot'...what we have is his immediate opinion after taking Hutchinson's statement. We don't know how this might have changed over the following days. One might even argue that since Hutchinson is entirely snubbed in the rest of the extant police reports and in the latter day memories of the police officials, that he was soon discredited as a witness.
Remember too, that if Mrs. Maxwell wasn't a crank, or if, as some reasonably argue, Kelly was killed much later in the morning, Hutchinson becomes less important.
Jim--I have always felt that whoever killed Kelly knew she would be alone in the room. I think she was sleeping...alone.
Best wishes, RP |
Author: Jim Leen
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 08:00 am | | Hello Everybody,
RJ, do I detect an allusion to somebody sneaking into Kelly's room to commit foul murder? Someone who knew her habits, could gain easy ingress and, uh-oh, lock the door behind him? Someone like Joe Barnett perchance?
And, just to stir things a bit, why should Abberline investigate Barnnet or Hutchinson further? After all, he knew that was the last killing didn't he? (Chuckle chuckle, just love that Friday feeling!)
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 08:17 am | | Hi RJ,
I just get the feeling that whoever killed Kelly took a calculated risk that they would not be disturbed. After all, how could her killer, even if it was, for example, Joe Barnett, have known for certain that none of Mary's close neighbours or female friends would decide to look through the window or come a-calling while he was in there?
What's wrong with a scenario in which Kelly takes Jack back to her room, assuming he is just another customer; he says something casually, to test the water, like "There won't be any interruptions, will there? I'd feel so much more comfortable if I could be sure this will be kept strictly between the two of us"; and she reassures him, perhaps by way of an acceptable explanation of her methods to deter other callers whenever she is otherwise occupied, ie 'entertaining'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 03:34 pm | | Caz, Jim--I'm more worried about how the murderer found Kelly in her room. Her boots are by the fire & her clothes are folded. She's called it a night. O.k. maybe she led the client there....but, personally, I don't like it. Is she going to spend the night with her client? I don't see the Whitechapel killer rolling in the bed for a couple of hours, or, like the blotchy-faced man, biding his time with a drink and a song beforehand. This guy has been striking suddenly, with no evidence that he had any sexual encounters with his victims. I think he would have struck immediately on being alone with Kelly. So, personally, I don't like the crime scene. No clothes folding, no boots by the fire. I think it's all wrong. It looks to me like the murderer came to the room after Kelly was alone. So what are the possibilities?
1. Hutchinson. He spots Kelly, and waits in the shadows until the client leaves. [Garry's theory]. I consider this reasonable, though I'm somewhat bothered by the idea of Hutchinson being so visible.
2. Hutchinson is a look-out. I tend to think this was the coroner's theory before Hutch came forward. What we are reading in Sarah Lewis's statement is her answer to the coroner's questions. Why did he ask her if the man across Dorset Street was 'tall & stout'? Was he thinking of the man across from the Stride attack? [Would he even be aware of Schwartz?] It seems reasonable, though having an accomplice would be rather rare, wouldn't it?
3. Somone else was a look-out and Hutchinson was a publicity hound. Perhaps less likely.
4. Hutchinson was telling the truth, and his 'suspect' killed Kelly at 4 a.m. Don't like it. It puts the man in the room for an hour or so before the cry of murder. But still, it's fairly reasonable, especially if you discount the wilder statements of Hutchinson as being influenced by the press.
5. The man leaving the Court at 6 a.m. was the last client. Kelly slept until a little later in the morning, and was killed by someone that came to her room. Barnett ? I think this is quite reasonable.
What I don't think is very likely is a roving Ripper that just happened upon Miller's Court.
All in all, I guess I tend towards #5... But I'm baffled.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 04:27 pm | | Hi all.
For a while I've had a suspicion that Kelly's killer may have been brought by her to Miller's Court on a previous occasion. I brought up some stuff here if you're interested.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 06:42 am | | Did Kelly take customers to her room?.I'm inclined to think not for this reason.If she had been in the habit of doing so after Barnett left,it would hardly have gone unnoticed by other people living in the court,and I am sure someone would have remarked on the fact during the inquest.Also the court inhabitants would have been questioned extensively by the police,and the question of visitors to her gone through in detail.
Now the blotchy face man was an exception ,but could not he have been a known aqquaintance willing to share the jug of beer he was carrying.Even Kelly must have felt need of some company if only for an hour or so,and did she pick the wrong person.Was he at that time unprepared for this eventuality,and not in possession of his knife,but resourceful as he was accepted his good luck and made plans.
He certainly would have been aware of Kelly's state of sobriety,even helped her further to a state of drunkeness with the beer he had.Saw her abed,and left the door on the latch for a later visit.
Returning at about 2.30 the unexpected appearance of Sarah Lewis deterred him at that time and he leaves to return again at about a quarter to four.
Were Hutchinson and the blotchy faced man one and the same person.
Was the midnight visitor indeed Blotchy faced.The witness description could have been faulty.The court was in total darkness,as reported by one witness,and his back was towards the witness as he and kelly entered and walked down the court passage.Witness would have passed quickly with but a momentary glance at a side profile against a dark background.
Do not forget that the relationship with Hutchinson goes back to Breezers Hill,to a time before Barnett,so the idea of allowing him her room to share a jug of beer very believable.
H.Mann. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 08:37 pm | | Hi RJ.
Excellent post once again. But I would, if I may, like to clarify two points. Firstly, I don't believe that Hutchinson saw Kelly out on the street. Had he done so, it would have been obvious to him that she had been drinking heavily. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly was no more than "a little spreeish" - somewhat tipsy. Secondly, if, as seems likely, Hutchinson's Dorset Street vigil commenced at about 2:00am, the streets were largely deserted owing to the prevailing weather conditions. This, of course, would have minimized the risk of being observed. I also have some video footage of Duval (formerly Dorset) Street shot in the early 1960s which reveals a series of recesses directly opposite the interconnecting passage. By stepping into one of these, Hutchinson could have melted into virtual invisibility. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but such minor details are sometimes important.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 10:41 pm | | Wow Gary, video footage of Miller's Court...now that's pretty awesome! Have you ever sold it for a documentary or anything or is there anywhere to view it?
Isn't it amazing how, once you fall into Ripperology, things like video of a small court in Whitechapel becomes fascinating must-see?? |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 11:43 pm | | Hi Brenda.
Sorry to disappoint you but the footage originated from a BBC crime documentary screened a few years ago. In the early 1960s a barman was shot dead at the Penn Club, an unlicensed drinking den on Duval Street. The alleged killer was one of the Nash brothers, then a notorious family of East London gangsters. It was probably this gangland connection that led to a period of intense media interest and therefore the existence of the archive film itself. Although the northern side of Duval Street had at this point been demolished and replaced with the extension to Spitalfields Market, the south side remained much as it had been in the Victorian era, even down to what appear to be gas lamp brackets above what had been the street's lodging houses.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 04:54 am | | Garry,
was the killing you wrote about anything to do with the "Kray Brothers"?, didn't they have a business shooting in Duval St in the sixties?.
Rick. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 07:21 am | | Hi Rick.
Please bear in mind that I'm trusting entirely to memory here, but the killing resulted as a consequence of a car crash. Driving one car was the barman, whose name, I believe, was Cooney. In the other car was one of the Nash brothers. The two vehicles collided and a fracas ensued. Nash apparently came off worst. A few days later Jimmy Nash - either the same or another of the brothers - allegedly walked into the Penn Club and shot Cooney through the head at point-blank range. The killing was witnessed by a barmaid named Fay, herself a thief and a gangster's moll. Jimmy Nash was arrested and subsequently tried at the Old Bailey. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Nash was acquitted. Fay had gone abroad and so did not testify and several jury members had been subject to intimidation. The Nashes then faded into relative obscurity.
Although there is no suggestion that the Kray twins were involved in this episode, they were and continued to be close friends of the Nashes. Interestingly, though, it was largely as a consequence of this case, along with the later convictions of the Richardsons and the Krays, that the English jury system was changed. At the time, a unanimous verdict was required in order to secure a conviction. Gangsters, however, exploited this loophole by bribing or intimidating individual jury members, a situation that was at least partially responsible for the rise of the organized criminal gangs in the 1950s and 1960s. In effect, these individuals enjoyed virtual immunity from the law. After the Krays were convicted, the majority verdict was introduced, a revision that increased the difficulty of jury tampering. As such, the old style criminal gangs were generally broken up before they had had the time to establish any real power and consequently became a thing of the past. Having said this, there are disconcerting signs that latter-day gangs, bolstered by drug money, are enjoying much the same kind of immunity as that which allowed the likes of the Richardsons and Krays to operate with virtual impunity.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 03:32 pm | | | Hi Garry, thank you for that, you give value for money . Does Dorset/Duval Street have a name these days?. I remember in 1970 or so I couldn't be sure I had found the right street because I couldn't find the name. In 1998 I walked up and down the same street knowing it was the right one, but I still couldn't find the name, so I'm here wondering,-- does it have a name?. Thank you again for the Nash story, it was very interesting, I should think the street has finally got rid of it's bad reputation but what a time it has taken. Rick |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 04:42 pm | | | Somewhere I read that there was another prostitute killed in Miller's Court, sometime in the 1960's. I cannot remember the source where I read that to save my life. I've read so much Ripper-related stuff in the past few months its all starting to bleed (pardon the pun) together. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Hi Brenda.
Given that Miller's Court was demolished at the end of the 1920s, the killing to which you referred must have occurred somewhere else. Sorry.
Hi Rick.
Sadly, Dorset/Duval Street is no more, having been demolished in the 1960s. Although the carriageway still exists, it has no name and serves as an access route for a car park, offices and a storage depot. I don't know if you are familiar with Colin Wilson's work, but he used to visit the Ripper murder sites in the early 1960s and remembers Duval Street as well as the original layout of Mitre Square - which, at that time, still retained the sink that many believed had been mentioned in Henry Smith's autobiography. How times have changed.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 07:33 pm | | On July 02, 1909, Kitty Ronan was murdered in No. 20 Miller's Court, Duval Street (formerly Dorset), the room formerly occupied by Elizabeth Prater. The murder would go unsolved. Andy Aliffe wrote an excellent piece for Ripperologist (No. 21, February 1999) about it.
Just run a keyword search under "Ronan" for more details.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 08:54 pm | | Garry,
Many thanks for your re-search.
John,
I took that story off the boards some time ago.
Brenda,
As John says, that story is really interesting, and the circumstances hard to believe, it goes by the name of "Kit, Kitty, Kitten", when you get on to it it's worth printing out.
Rick |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 10:29 pm | | Well I'm glad to find out I'm not completely insane with Ripperology yet...I distinctly remembered someone else being killed at Miller's court...so I'm a few decades off? :-)
I will go research this story, it sounds fascinating.
Can you imagine if Miller's Court had been in America? With so many crazy people here, they would have had to post security every Halloween, aanniversary of one of the murders, etc. I know that at least one thrill-seeker visited Miller's Court after the murder and the new occupant let him/her in...I wonder if the new occupant and any further occupants had to deal with a lot of thrill seekers knocking at their door? |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 01:20 am | | Garry:
"Duval Street as well as the original layout of Mitre Square - which, at that time, still retained the sink"
Just to clarify, the sink was in Duval St, right?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 05:36 am | | Hi Timsta.
The sink to which Colin Wilson referred was in Mitre Square, though I have no idea as to its position. I have seen photographs of the square taken in 1925 but the sink does not appear to be visible. Major Smith, as I'm sure you will recall, claimed to have been within five minutes of the Ripper immediately after one murder - so close, in fact, that he claimed to have seen evidence of the killer's clean up operation draining away from a sink in Dorset Street. Given this Dorset Street reference, it was once believed that Smith was referring to the Kelly murder. But, as Colin Wilson pointed out, the killer had long gone by the time that Kelly's body was discovered. Colin therefore deduced that Smith must have been alluding to the Eddowes murder, and that the blood Smith saw was draining from the sink in Mitre Square rather than Dorset Street. But even this is unlikely since Smith did not arrive at Mitre Square until some hours after the discovery of Kate's body. Be this as it may, a number of people did for a time assume that the Major had confused the sink's location. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I have always regarded Smith's 'blood draining from sink' story as complete bullshit.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 10:25 am | | | What do the description words 'blotchy face' convey to you? A bad complection--birthmark--scars--sores.Does blotchy convey color or some physical abnormality or diseased skin.What would you look for in a 'blotchy face'.Was this common on the east side or was it rare? |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:59 am | | Garry:
Fascinating. I have never before heard of a Mitre Square sink. Where does Wilson reference this? I find it strange that it's not shown on the plan of Mitre Sq prepared for the Eddowes inquest (in the PRO pack and Begg) since it shows lamps, posts, railing and other small features.
Are we perchance talking about a Metropolitan Water Society (or whatever it is) fountain? I think there are records of the locations of those available.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 12:01 pm | | David:
Acne
Rosacea
Smallpox
Chickenpox
Syphilis (unlikely, I think)
Portwine stains
My best guesses.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 06:51 pm | | Hi David.
For what it's worth, I've always considered it likely that Blotchy Face's complexion was a consequence of alcoholism. But this interpretation is based upon intuition rather than tangible evidence, so must be treated with caution.
Hi Timsta.
Now you've got me! I honestly cannot recall the book(s) in which Colin Wilson referred to the Mitre Square sink, nor indeed whether it occurred in one of his own volumes or was a contribution to someone else's. About all I do remember in this context is that it was almost certainly prior to 1990. I'll have a look through my Wilson collection and see if I can dig it out for you. The problem, however, is that I'm short of time at present and many of Colin's books are not indexed. Still, I'll see what I can do.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
|
|
|
|
