|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 January 6, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Hutchinson, George (British):
Archive through January 6, 1999
Author: Ron Taylor
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:22 pm |        | George Hutchinson is interesting. I'm surprised he has never been "in the frame" as a suspect for Kelly's murder.
He had been in the habit of giving her money (a shilling was mentioned - a not inconsiderable sum at the time)
That night Kelly asked him for money but he had spent all his money going to Romford. Did she ask him for money or solicit him and tell him "no" when he had no money.
He hangs around - sees her pick up another man and then, by his own admission, stays outside watching for 45 minutes on a, presumably cold, November night. He had no choice but to admit this as he was seen by several witnesses.
There seem to be elements of obsession, stalking etc in all of this.
It wouldn't be hard to imagine a man obsessed with Kelly (he appears to have been a previous client) perhaps propositioning her that night, being told "no" because he had no money, watching her pick up another man, follow them back to her lodgings, wait outside for 45 minutes, finally lose control, enter either by knocking or through the easy to opendoor etc etc.
However, one detail bothers me. If she took somebody back to her room why (as in the other cases) no evidence of "connexion" as they coyly put it. I wonder how thorough the examination was in this respect.
My understanding of prostitution in those times, from other reading, is that both anal and oral sex were very common partly to avoid pregnancy and partly to minimise contact with the cold & filthy ground. Would either of these activities have been detected by the PM. Sorry to be graphic but it is a fair question. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:24 pm | | | I would like to pass on my ideas as to why GEORGE HUTCHINSON should be considered a suspect in the ripper killings.He has never been portrayed as anything but a witness who claimed to have seen KELLY take a male person into her room on the night she was killed. I am of the opinion that his story was a total fabrication ,in fact an alibi for his presence at crossingham's lodging house.it is true that stood up to an interview with ABERLINE but the latter at that time ,would have been physically and mentally drained,and unable to make a sound judgement. If his story was false it places him in a awkward position.He can be placed at the scene of the crime shortly before it happened.The profile of the killer suits him as well as anyone.He lived in lodgings close to the scene of the crimes.He was unemployed giving him the opportunity to be mobile at all times.The killer did not need any extraordinary strength or intellect,and the weapon used was not hard to come by.he could have been familier with the victims and the neighbourhood.He could have known of KELLY'S circumstances of her being alone,and the way of opening her door through the broken window. KELLY did not need to be out soliciting for money.She had not been given any ultimaton to leave her room.witness states it was usual for her to sing before retiring to bed after a drinking session.her clothes folded neatly on the chair indicates this is what she did that night.If she didn't go out that night,then the killer broke in. if HUTCHINSON was the killer it is possible he intended going to her room around two o'clock but was interuppted by SARAH LEWIS'S appearance.This neccessitated him to go later.at the time the cry of murder was heard in the court. there is nothing to prove HUTCHINSON was the killer'but i think he should be thought of as a suspect. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:25 pm | | | New book, "From Hell", picks Hutchinson as a likely suspect...and I believe the writer is a lawyer who uses his experience in weighing testimony from witnesses. Haven't read the book; and I don't believe Hutchinson was the Ripper. Abberline might have been "drained" at the time, but not years after. Abberline, in two Pall Mall Gazette interviews conducted (or printed at least) in 1903, Abberline thinks George Chapman/Severin Klosowski was the Ripper. Hutchinson may have been "stalking" Kelly. His "loans" may have been euphemisms for purchasing sex. He may have obsessed on Kelly. But I think Abberline knew (and could probably verify his subsequent whereabouts after he waited near Kelly's door on the night she was murdered) that Hutchinson -- though fixated on Kelly -- was not her murderer. He does give some awfully detailed descriptive clues in his testimony/newspaper account. Why didn't the Metro/City police follow up on the possibly distinctive horseshoe-shaped tiepin, the watch chain, the gold chain, and the astrakhan coat? A distinctive combination, maybe not so common. But at this point, who knows? Maybe every man in London was wearing a horseshoe-shaped tiepin! All this is from Sudgen's book...any errors are, as always, my own. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 11:38 pm | | Poor George Hutchinson. For all the good he did in coming forth with his story, he might as well have kept his mouth shut.
Another book is out accusing him of the murders. Doesn't George have any other value or clue to offer modern JtR research besides:
1) casting doubt on his eyesight,
2) determining the number of lumens shed by Victorian gaslight,
3) determining the pseudo-authoritative chromaticity of fabric seen under speculative lighting conditons,
4) using biased anecdotes to question the plausibility of his accurate description of unusual articles of apparel,
5) "discovering" that George is really the prototype of the modern "stalker" sociopath,
6) other such examples where the modern investigatory mind is shown to be quite superior (thank you very much!) to the dull, dismal 1888 investigatory mind?
Why not question the veracity and the abilities of ALL the witnesses? I wonder how many witnesses were asked if they wore glasses, or could afford them if they needed them, and if they had them were they wearing their glasses during the event they witnessed? For all we know, none of these witnesses (including my hero, Schwartz) could see their hands in front of their faces if they were standing on the Equator at high noon!
Since no one alive (and writing JtR books) today has ever lived in 1888 Whitechapel, I wonder why we try to determine how far apart 1888 gas lamp posts were -- and what does that prove? Do we know whether some/all/none of the lamps were lit that night at all, or if they were overlit that night (a slight misadjustment or leak causing more gas than usual to be burnt that night, without necessarily threatening explosion), or if other sources of light -- besides the penetrating gaze of backward-looking modern investigators -- illuminated the street? It's all one big fat guess about the conditions that night. And that's just lighting!
The uncertainties we have about those conditions or the inability to question George have led some people to cast doubt on George himself...with NO cause...none, nada. Abberline and others accepted that George could see what he says (maybe because they often had to do the same thing themselves), they could question him, they could investigate his background, they lived in an 1888 gaslight world. We don't and never will. We cannot know the conditions of the street on the night of September 8-9, 1888. We cannot cross-examine George. So is it "Euraka, we've found our killer!" or is it just too bad and what, beside manufacturing a novelty suspect, difference does it make?
Some day, I'd like to go over the events of that night and test an idea I've always had about dear old George that I hope he never thought of, if this idea's likelihood can be shown.
That is, if good-old moonstruck, lovesick, shy unrequited lover, Victorian era version of a modern obsessed stalker, or simple Curious George had simply stayed the course, kept his vigil, not walked away from watching Mary Kelly's room, the murder might not have happened. And that the savagery of the attack on Kelly's body -- like Eddowes' disfigurement -- has a direct, causal relationship with the murderer's consciousness that, once again, he was SEEN by a (male) witness. Or they were seen...does anybody recognize any familiar descriptions from other crime scene witnesses, especially of headgear, among the people seen along with George (and by George!) in the street that night?
But only if everyone agrees that Liz Stride is a JtR victim!
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 09:58 am | | Hello Yazoo,
Please forgive the length of this posting, but I didn’t find time to reply to your last missive on this subject after promising to do so.
1). I feel compelled to pick up on your paragraph containing the words… "I wonder why we try to determine how far apart 1888 gas lamp posts were -- and what does that prove?" Well to start with, scene of crime information like this would be considered of great importance in an investigation today. We should be looking to fill the gaps in the Victorian investigation of these murders wherever possible. As for what it proves:-
(a) It demonstrates the conditions under which the murderer worked, with implications for his medical and anatomical knowledge. This is pertinent in Bucks Row and especially at Mitre Square which were both very dark.
(b) It allows us to make a better-informed judgement about of the quality of the various witnesses’ sightings.
In 1888 street lighting away from the main thoroughfares such as Whitechapel Road, Commercial Road and Commercial Street was very scant. What lighting there was in the side streets tended to be placed at street corners. Additional lighting was provided by the large lamps which were often attached to the outside of pubs and lodging houses. I don’t know whether the publicans and lodging house keepers were in the habit of extinguishing these lights when they closed for the night. Can anyone help?
Lighting was a big issue at the time of the Ripper murders. Even Queen Victoria picked up on it in a telegram to the Prime Minister after the Miller’s Court murder. In February 1888 the Commercial Gas Company announced a price cut for the gas used in public lamps to the Whitechapel and St. George’s Board of Works. The authorities did nothing to take advantage of this until after the Tabram killing. Then within days they voted ‘that lamps with double the illuminating power be fixed at the corner of the following streets…’ The list included Wentworth Street, Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. In November a special Lighting Committee was given the enormous sum of £2,200 to spend by the end of March 1889; the third highest expenditure item in the whole district. (Source: East End 1888 by William J. Fishman).
Anyhow, Yaz, my main point is this… Some students of the JTR case are interested in details like the street layouts, the lighting, the pubs and the minor personalities. You can see evidence of this on these message boards and in other Casebook articles. Others argue about more fundamental details such as M.O., how many cuts, which cuts and the ‘handedness’ of the murderer. (I quote this subject as an example because I remember you having a lot of input to it). NONE of these matters is essential on its own account to solve the case. However, taken overall each fact gives us another piece of the jigsaw. Locating the street lamps won’t give us a definitive measure of light, only an estimate of it since the lamp may have been broken or unlit, as you say. Also we must take the weather conditions into account. Similarly knowing whether JTR was left or right handed is only any use with certain suspects. No doubt Sir William Gull’s scalpel hand is documented somewhere and someone probably knows whether Druitt bowled right or left-handed. But what about Barnett or Kosminski or Ostrog?
The fact is that all detailed research is valid and potentially valuable as long as it is conducted competently and honestly. IMO, after 110 years in which everything has changed completely, the discovery of any piece of information which helps to build a better picture of the events of Whitechapel 1888 and of their context is to be encouraged.
2). George Hutchinson’s name appears not only on this board but also under the Witnesses and Ripper Literature topics. In recent times he seems to have become a popular non-contemporary suspect. Undoubtedly the prime reason for this is what many people see as the suspicious behaviour on the night 8th/9th November and in coming forwards 3 days later to make his statement. Personally I don’t like seeing the same things repeated continuously on boards, (it smacks too much of those who shout the loudest getting heard the most), so I won’t repeat the detailed points here. Those who are interested enough can read them elsewhere and make up their own minds. Suffice to say I am one of those people who find Hutch’s actions suspicious and you are not. To my eyes there are more reasons to question his role and motives that those of the innocuous Joe Barnett, who is currently one of the most fashionable suspects for JTR.
The main problem with Bob Hinton’s book ("From Hell") is that the author was unable to unearth enough facts about Hutchinson to make his case properly. So he launched off into a lot of surmising instead. I haven’t seen "JTR: An American View" by Stephen Wright, but judging from C-M’s review Wright seems to have had the same problem. The trouble with researching a ‘nobody’ alive in 1888, whether they were a victim, a suspect or a witness is that facts are hard to come by. Until such time as someone can discover much more about Hutch and about Abberline’s questioning of him, I feel that he is likely to remain in the frame. A really thorough, factually-based work is required which either makes a good case for his candidature or which exonerates him completely.
3). On the question of researching Hutchinson, as a little aside may I take this opportunity to throw out a challenge to anybody reading this. Hinton was unable to discover what became of Hutch, saying only that he had left his lodgings by 1891. There may be one tiny chink of light. His residence, the Victoria Home for Working Men does appear to have been some kind of Philanthropic organisation, (again see an earlier posting). At the moment I can offer little more about the Victoria Home, but in the 1880s certain organisations in the East End were in the habit of sending the poor overseas for a ‘new start’, especially to Canada and also to Australasia. The Manager of the Victoria Home was Augustus Wilke, who gave his own address as the EMIGRANT’S HOME in Blackwall. At present working commitments are limiting my time to check this out, and unfortunately they will get worse. So if anybody else wants to examine this, whether at the U.K. end or in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, feel free.
Regards, V |
Author: Guy Hatton
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 11:38 am | | Hi Viper!
It would appear that publicans and lodging-house keepers were in the habit of putting out their outside lights at reasonably predictable times each night, if I am interpreting Elizabeth Prater's statement correctly when she says:
"I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4, probably"
Sugden, p.329
Also, I seem to recall that Matthew Packer is supposed to have estimated the time by noticing that the public houses were shut for the night, perhaps identifiable partly by virtue of the outside lights having been extinguished?
Regards
Guy |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:03 pm | | Hey, Viper and Guy!
First, thanks for the info. Second, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on Curious George. But I do take the position that Abberline and Co. knew how to conduct an investigation but they were up against a new phenomonon...a serial killer who has no apparent motive or link to his victims. They interviewed hundreds, maybe thousands, of men. Curious George was unlikely to have escaped that scrutiny.
As to the crime scene...yes, it is very important, but the Victorian police didn't seem to be very consistent in preserving the crime scene -- if they tried at all. In fact, several of the bodies of the victims were washed before an autopsy could be performed -- which makes any discussion of whether ejaculate was present on some of the victims inconclusive (a discussion under another topic is discussing this). But in reality, considering the state of technology and criminal investigation procedure, what would they be able to find that they could use? Fibers...no technology to anlayze or even find tiny fibers. Fingerprints...maybe, but then they had no bank of fingerprints to which they could compare them, and fingerprinting every suspect or every man they questioned might have caused political trouble.
My point is that, while acknowledging the importance of the crime scene/street scene, we cannot go back and even reasonably estimate the conditions on any particular hour of any particular night. To do so, as Hinton seems to have done, is a noble effort...but is it more apt to mislead than to (pardon the pun) shed light. We don't know what the weather was like, for instance, except for a general report. But we all know that weather conditions can change abruptly, and absolute opposite conditions can occur between relatively small areas...the vagaries just pile up. We don't know if the lamplighters were consistent in lighting lamps, or if they blew out, or if the gas created a flaring effect. We don't know if ALL public houses or other buildings had their lamps on or off -- in general and specifically on the nights in question. If Whitechapel was a crime-ridden area, it would be reasonable to assume that some merchants, businessmen, and lodging housekeepers MIGHT have their outisde lamps on -- to ward off burgulars or attract lodgers..but which ones, and to what cumulative effect...who knows?
As to finding Curious George, is he in any census records...either for England or anywhere in the British Empire that kept a census? If only we all lived in England where the old records are (hopefully) stored. Or will the PRO, FO, and HO ever digitize their old records, preserving them from the trashbin of History?
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 03:04 am | | Hi Yaz!
First of all, Happy new year!
About lamplighters. London lamplighters of the period went around early in the morning lighting, or rather turning up, the gas street lamps by use of a long hooked pole to turn a fitted gas tap on. The pole was also used to tap at the upper bedroom windows of those who paid for it as an early morning call service.
This means, of course, that someone also turned the lamps down at night. A pilot light burnt the whole time in each lamp, which was fitted with the usual filaments to increase light output.
I know that because in the town where I lived as a student, there were still original period gas lamps, complete with the cast 'VR' crown and shield, still lighting some of the back streets.
Yes, there was a lamplighter who turned the lamps down at about 11 p.m and turned them up at about 6 a.m. if still dark. (1962- Chippenham, Wiltshire) AND he still tapped at bedroom windows with his pole.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 07:26 am | | Hey, Bob
Welcome back. I missed you. Were the lamps fixed at minimum or maximum settings, and could they leak without necessarily causing explosion?
Yaz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 07:56 am | | Dear ALL,
I have been reading the postings with great interest. I fully accept what has been said about my book not containg enough information about George Hutchinson. I was in a catch 22 situation. Research needs money which means getting a book published, getting a book published needs research! I should point out that the entire book was financed completely out of my not very deep pockets!
However since the book has been published I have been able to do a lot more research on Hutchinson and found out some very ineresting facts about him and his family. I will (hopefully) be publishing these soon.
all the best to everyone. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 08:24 am | | Hi Yaz
I missed you too. Yes, I even know that!
Minimum setting was when the tap was closed. The only gas used was for the pilot light, which could not be switched off itself. Maximum setting was a product of gas pressure and tap position, normally full open. At the lower end of the lamp standard there was a brass plate, locked with a special square key. Behind this plate was a main valve for turning off the complete lamp (At least in the lamps referred to in Chippenham)
The lamps of that time had no safety sensor (the lamps I knew were fitted with such) so if the pilot blew out, gas escaped steadily. While the lamp cases were clearly not air-tight, the small amount of gas escaping did not represent a danger.
If the lamplighter was so dumb (or drunk) that he didn't notice that the lamp didn't brighten as he turned it up, you could suppose that enough gas could escape to cause an explosion.
At that time the smell wasn't added to gas so you could then have got a suprise if you lit your cigar standing under a non-illuminated street lamp at wind-still. In the practice the only normal real danger from gas was the suicide merchants who stuck their heads in the ovens and then, being dead, didn't turn the gas off afterwards.
At open light to see what was going on, that caused a thermal rearrangement of the domestic scene rather less to the taste of other occupants, in many cases causing them to share in the joys perpertrated by the suicide.
He-he. Oh how clever I am!
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 08:55 am | | Thanks to both Bobs! You are ever a fount of wisdom and knowledge, Bob C! Bob H, any word on when we can expect your new book -- and will it be an update of "From Hell" or a new title (P.S., you should probably say it's a new title so the thrifty among us don't cheat! I've got MY copy of "From Hell," Casebookmates, do you have yours -- Support your local Ripper author!)
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 02:23 pm | | Just thought I would add a quick note here as we are discussing George Hutchinson.
I have written a few thoughts on the Literature board about a new book, "JTR: An American View" by Steven Wright, who also proposes Hutchinson as a suspect. Unfortunately, while he does list Bob Hinton's excellent book in his bibliography, he fails to give him his due and says that his own book is the first to list GH as a suspect. "Sic transit gloria," you know!
In any event, it's good to know that Bob will be publishing an update on his own research, and I look forward to it. Perhaps in other posts I have given the impression that I didn't care for "From Hell." Far from it - I enjoyed it immensely; my only quibble was that I thought Bob was clutching at straws in order to portray GH as a stalker. But I am certainly willing to be convinced! Do keep us updated, Bob.
Yaz - a little slow, aren't you? SOME of us have had copies of "From Hell" for ever so long! :-)
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 02:37 pm | | HAH!
The question for you, CM, is exactly how many copies of "From Hell" you already own? Have you "cornered the market" on Bob's book as well? Fear not, Mr. Hinton, no Ripper author need ever starve as long as CM has a dollar burning a hole in his pants.
heehee -- and I do wish I could learn to make those smiley-face things on the keyboard, but all they want to teach me in the Casebook Chatroom is how to speak German! Gackkkk!
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 04:18 pm | | Well, well. Some really enlightened comment from a band of luminaries!
GUY. Thanks for your observations. That bit about the lodging house lights being out does suggest that at least some of the keepers extinguished them when they closed.
YAZ.
Thanks for your comments about the difficulty of gaging the light at any given time. I did note last time that we should only use the lamp positions as a guide because there were other variables like the cloud and weather. However your point is well made. My gut feeling tells me that knowing the lamppost’s respective positions still gives us a better guide to the light than you appear to believe though. The key to that issue may lie in the reliability of the lamps. By 1888 gas lighting was a mature technology; indeed experiments were being made in other parts of London with electric lights which were already seen as a long-term replacement.
On the census issue, there is one every ten years where the year ends in a ‘1’. I had assumed that Bob Hinton used the 1881 census to ascertain that Hutch was a barman in Clerkenwell at that time, and the 1891 census to say that he had disappeared from his lodgings.
Now he has returned to the Boards, perhaps Mr. Hinton can confirm this, and also tell us if he checked the census returns post-1891. (Hello and thanks Bob H. Good to hear from you).
BOB C
Great to have you back! As a world authority on gas lamps you’ve really given some added value to this discussion! Couple of follow-up points though…
(a). What time would the lamps have been lit in the evening? (Dusk-ish every night?)
(a). Does it follow necessarily that the lighting up and shutting off times would be the same for Whitechapel in 1888 as for Chippenham in 1962? For instance you remember that the lamplighter turned the lamps down at 11 p.m. But in 1962 we had licensing hours. In the East End of the 1880s drinking was unregulated, so people on the streets presumably needed a stronger light later into the night.
If you any answers to these points I’d be very grateful. Then I promise to say no more about lighting for the time being – I’ve gassed enough.
Regards, V |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:02 pm | | Hey, Viper!
Glad to shed even a little light on the subject.
Three things: 1) I don't have a problem in reconstructing the street scenes, down to the lighting, as long as no suspect gets theoretically "hung" based on the reconstruction. 2) If you're really serious about this, you can use fairly inexpensive software to do a kind of 3D modelling...but I expect using the software would be complex (creating the programming logic to allow you to adjust the scene for atmospherics and light), but also having a reliable street map and data about passage widths and building heights etc. 3) If George was a true Englishman and migrated, you could check British colonies (or whatever they were called back then) like Australia and Canada etc. to see if George migarted there (but it does sound like Bob H. has discovered where Curious George went).
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:18 pm | | | Hello Yaz. Agree with you on points 1 and 3. Number 2 sounds a bit novel though. Certainly beyond my capabilities! V |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:35 pm | | Hey, Viper,
The software is more than a bit beyond my current abilities too. But it could be as "simple" as VRML (like what's used in the game, "Myst") all the way to Computer-Aided Design (CAD) programs -- the fancy CAD packages aren't cheap (thousands of dollars) but there are PC-based versions for a lot less.
Not suggesting you should do this, but the possibility exists if anyone out in our studio audience has the desire and the programming ability.
And I'm relieved to hear you won't be stringing Curious George up too soon. I kinda like the little guy...but I suppose that's what Albert Fish's next door neighbor said to the police!
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 04:26 am | | Hi all
WOW again!
Of course I can't say when the public lamps were turned up/down in London in 1888. Presumably they were turned up when it was getting dark and turned down when it was getting light. (Hah!) The bit about Chippenham was just to give a parallel for the lamplighter and his tasks, not an idea of lightup/down times.
We should consider that then in London, the few public lamps augumented the many private lamps at night. The public lamps may have burnt all night, as the main reason for their existance was one of police supervision, not that of lighting the public to bed.
I suspect that testimoney concerning the turning out of lights referred to the private lamps over the entrances of shops etc., as Guy says about Prater's evidence where he quotes Sugden.
There is a casebook photo of the street outside the Brittania pub about 1908. Such private lamps can clearly be seen and would be very similar to those in 1888.
The public lamps in 1888 were pretty wide apart, mostly brought in at main junctions etc. The rest was dark, when not light privately. Thus the public lamps could have burnt all night, without altering the fact that in many places light did not.
Yaz, I took over twenty years to learn Deutsch, and that mostly in pubs. That's why I learnt to say Sch#*§§!! long before I could say 'Guten Tag, verehrte Dame'. In the same way, my German lady friend can now swear in english like a hardend seaman, although that's about all.
Keep shoveling, friend!
Bob |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 09:01 am | | Wouldn't that be something? A virtual Whitechapel, circa 1888 designed and presented like the computer game Myst. All of the information could be included, everything we know about the murders. We could see the buildings and streets how they were, their placement, the lights, the darkness. We could re-enact the weather conditions, rain, etc. We would see Mary Kelly's room, inside and out, we could visit the Ten Bells. What if we go further and populate our virtual Whitechapel with people? A random spattering of sedentary individuals, the witnesses...Hutchinson outside of Kelly's room, Israel Schwartz hurrying along after witnessing Lizzie Stride's attack, Lizzie Prator and her kitten, etc. Then, maybe we could introduce the victims and everything we know about them, dress them in the clothing which we knew they wore on their last night on this plane of existence, put them in the places we knew they were at the times they were...even if it's only their poor bodies after they were murdered. Could we re-enact their mutilations (I know, this is the awful part, but I think we shouldn't leave out anything we know at all). Then, the suspects, do the same with them. Create them all with times and places and let it go and see what happens. I know that what we have established as facts are slim, but we could program all the possibilities, not the theories, but the little niggling conjectures concerning witnesses and placement, technique and timing. Perhaps we could concentrate on one murder at a time.....Kelly's room for instance. Make the fire burn from 4 am to 4:30 am, or maybe a little later....have Kelly cry out 'Murder', or not. Freeze frame everyone at a specific time to see where they were. Maybe something would click, maybe it would clarify some things. Or maybe, we just don't know enough yet. I wish I could program, I'd do it. I think it would be a valuable aid.
Edana |
|
|
|
|
