|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Witness Reliability
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: General Discussion:
Witness Reliability
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 04:13 am |        | Dear Robeer
I can't believe I just read what you wrote. You keep talking about White doing this and White doing that, and his description being the most accurate etc etc. Have you anything at all to connect White with this account? Anything. I'm so desperate I'll accept that someone who once knew White's eldest cousins sister in law brothers friend, says that its so.
But you haven't even got that. What you have is an anonomous person writing an account that doesn't fit any of the known facts and saying this incident happened to a man who is dead. Hardly the basis for an investigation. Look let me put it this way, pretend this is a new post.
" From Anonomous. I know that JTR was a six foot african giant who had escaped from Buffalo Bills Wild West show because Abberline once said it was"
Now would that account send you scurrying around trying to make it come true or not. If not why not it has just as much validity as the White story.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:37 am | | Hi, Robeer and Simon:
I side with Bob in wondering why you think the White story has any value. A number of us have posed serious questions about its worth yet you persist in thinking it is true. Your theories are like sand castles built on sand. The White story is very like the Maybrick diary in that it has no decent provenance and is undoubtedly without value. Give it up.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 05:52 pm | | Can we just burble on about this one ?
You never know we might strike some gold somewhere.
You know , you don't have to read it if you don't want to ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 06:16 pm | | What I have tried to show is that the White story is a reasonable approximation to the events of the Stride murder , maybe even 90% accurate. Therefore it is deeper than a mere made-up story off the cuff. To use Bob's example of the ' African giant ' this anecdote is obviously made-up and has no details in it to connect it to the Ripper case apart from mention of Abberline.
If the White story is fake , it is most likely that the writer has studied the case and set out to deliberately decieve the reader , as the murder in the story conforms almost exactly to the Stride murder details. But what motive is there for doing that ? Unless we assume it was a coincidence that the writer got almost all the details right.
Which brings me to another point : who knew , in 1919 , that Stephen White had been involved with the Ripper case at all , or even in catching anarchists ?
A cover-up on this matter is entirely sensible if the story is a true account. It seems like the two policemen in the house had been shirking their duties and hadn't really taken too much notice of who had entered the alley ; only when it is too late do the police discover the body and the fact that the Ripper has slipped through their fingers is all too plain. It had to be covered up because it was a blunder of extreme proportions , no matter what the cost. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 06:36 pm | | In asking for association with White , our story hits a snag ( ok , I admit it !!! ) but I think this is a problem common to the Ripper case as a whole ; who is to say that none of the statements of any one of the people involved in the case could not be made up ? Hutchinson , Schwartz , Packer , Cadosch , John Richardson , Sara Lewis , Mrs Long - either by genuine error or wanting ' 5 minutes of fame ' , they could all have been mistaken or lying. Can we say that this newspaper article is any more true or false than these statements , we only have a common consensus largely based on intuition of what is true or not.
I would say that White is associated with the events described in the article because the writer of the article says he is.
I would say that the writer of the article is recounting events he believed to be true , or he is deliberately setting out to decieve us , because of the similarity of the article's events to the Stride murder.
I would say that I believe the article to be true , because I do not have any motive for the writer of the article to be deliberately trying to decieve. I cannot prove the article to be true , but I believe it is so.
Simon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 02:34 pm | | Dear Simon,
Fair enough, your view is that you cannot prove the article to be true but you believe it is, to take liberties with the words (attrib) of Msr Arouet, ' I do not believe what you believe but defend to the death your right to believe it'
You ask, quite rightly, what motive could the author have in writing this if it is in fact an invention. Lets have a look at this and see if we can come up with some ideas. These are my views.
First the article is signed 'a Scotland Yard Man'. This tells me the author is not and never had been a police officer but was someone who thought he deserved recognition as a truly great detective.
The article itself is written in the spirit of 'I told you so' its almost as if the author was presenting proof that his theories as to the identity of the killer were correct and here is a report by a respected police officer to back up his submissions. He then brings in Sir Robert Anderson into the story - even the highest of the high is now agreeing with the author. Sir Robert of course was by this time, like Stephen White, dead so was not in a position to refute the claims made on his behalf.
The killer is then described in detail. He is obviously a professional man, but a man who had seen better days. His staring eyes hints to us that he is insane, and he moves quietly on rubber soled shoes. The author has correctly identified the killer but the police take no notice of him, but here at last is proof that he has been right all along. The fools they should have listened to him.
So who do we know like that? Ladies and gentlemen may I present Mr E Callaghan. Mr Callaghan was a friend and confident of Forbes Winslow ( who died in 1913) and together they were convinced the killer was a certain G Wentworth Bell Smith. Together this duo made themselves quite a nuisance with the police always insisting they knew better than Scotland Yards finest. Forbes Winslow even going to the extent of altering dates on letters to make it appear he was correct in his summations.
G Wentworth Bell Smith was an interesting character who could be described as a professional man who had come down in the world. He suffered delusions about women and was possibly insane. He wore rubber soled felt topped galoshes. In spite of hi being put in the frame by both Callaghan and Forbes Winslow their claims were dismissed by the police.
Did Callaghan write the article - I've no idea but I would sooner believe he wrote it than it had any connection with Stephen White.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Thanks for your post Bob , it reminded me of a very important fact - that this case attracted many people like Mr Callaghan who thought they had the answer , who would deliberately make stuff up to ' prove ' they were right and who were probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
Groan !
I'm just too trusting I think !
But surely even Callaghan would have given up on this by 1919 ? And do we have any evidence that the description matched Wentworth Bell himself ( eg was the description of the ' burning eyes ' ever used about GWB for instance ? )
And call me stoopid , but why does the fact the article is signed ' A Scotland Yard Man ' disqualify the author from being a policeman ? Surely he wanted to express the fact he was a member of Special Branch or CID rather than a member of the Met , a beat copper. And thus he would have access to this information about White. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 12:58 pm | | Dear Simon,
I am assuming that a genuine police officer or ex police officer would identify himself as such, ie A Serving Police Officer or A retired police officer ( substitute detective for police officer to taste) The term A Scotland Yard man is nicely ambiguous.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 01:09 pm | | Hi, Bob:
You make a good point about the name "A Scotland
Yard Man" probably being a made-up designation. I agree that "A Serving Police Officer" or "A Retired Police Officer" would have been more likely what a genuine policeman would have used. "A Scotland Yard Man" smacks a bit of such monikers as "An Oxford Man" or "An Eton Man" doesn't it? In fact, it sounds just like the sort of chummy name "A Fleet Street Man" would have used to cobble together a story under the guise of writing the article as a copper "in the know." 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 11:08 am | | Simon,
here is Mr E. Callaghan's description of Bell Smith.
"He is about 5ft 10in in height, walks very peculiarly with his feet wide apart, knees weak and rather bending in, hair dark, complexion the same, moustache and beard closely cut giving the idea of being unshaven, nice looking teeth probably false, he appeared well conducted, was well dressed and resembled a foreigner speaking several languages, entertains strong religious delusions about women..."
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 02:07 pm | | | Doesn't sound like our man here though Wolf. |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 06:42 am | | Simon,
After careful study of the White story I broke the information down into component parts and did some basic statistical analysis. The results came out in favor of Berner Street, something you have advocated from the beginning. There are still some odd discrepencies however. Nevertheless, if this story did happen then it most likely happened at Berner Street. For some reason I can't explain, even with all its contradictions, the White story has a feel of elemental authenticity. However, the case may finally be solved. See message board, Witnesses: A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemshutz. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 07:51 am | | Hi All,
Last night I watched an interesting documentary by the guys and gals from America Undercover. The show was entitled 'Murder on a Sunday Morning'.
The documentary centered on the trial of Brenton Butler, a 15 year-old African American accused of killing a white tourist. The reason why I believe this case is at all pertinent is the eyewitness testimony.
The husband of the woman who was shot and killed was standing next to her when her assailant pulled a gun on them and demanded her purse. It was 7:30 in the morning and the killer was no more than three feet facing them both, so the husband was able to get a pretty good look at the assailant.
A couple of hours later the husband was shown young Mr. Butler and asked if Butler was the man that had killed his wife. The husband got into police car with Mr. Butler, sitting right next to him staring him over, then stated, 'That's him.' When the policed asked, 'Are you sure?' The husband replied, 'I'd never want to send an innocent man to jail, so I'm sure it's him!' The husband appeared in court and again stated that he had NO DOUBT in his mind that young Mr. Butler was the killer.
Later, Mr. Butler was released due to the jury finding reasonable doubt in many aspects of the case.
However, 10 months after the shooting, another man was arrested after he made a confession to a fellow inmate in prison. Fingerprint ID was done on the victim's purse, which had been recovered, and showed that this man was definitely in possession of her purse, so evidence pointed to him.
So why did I bring this up here you ask? Simple. The actual assailant of the tourist was 10 years older, 6 inches taller, lighter complected, skinnier of build, and his features were MUCH different(his nose and cheeks much thinner) than Mr. Butler's. Yet Mr. Butler was ID'd time and time again by what many consider an eyewitness under IDEAL circumstances. The sun was up, by the time of the assault, so the entire area was WELL lit. And the killer was less than 3 feet from the witness, directly facing him. This added to the fact that the witness sat next to the Mr. Butler to make his Identification, and being sure of his dicision without a doubt.
Now let's look at the three most reliable Ripper Witnesses.
Mrs. Long(Darrel) who was walking down Hanbury Street at 5:30 on the morning of September 8th. The sun would not have been up yet, but possibly just starting to rise. So the area was dimly lit. She may have passed within a few feet of the man she saw conversing with Annie Chapman, however his back was turned to her, so she never got a good look at his face.
Mr. Schwartz, who was walking down Berner Street at 12:45 a.m. on September 30th. The two men he saw near Elizabeth Stride were at least 15 feet away from him, and the night was rather dark due to the cloud cover overhead.
Mr. Lawende, standing outside a Pub on Duke Street at 1:30 a.m. on September 30th. The man he saw with Catherine Eddowes was standing in a dark passageway at least 13 feet away. Miss Eddowes was standing in front of the suspect, partially obscuring Mr. Lawende's view. Also the same weather and lighting conditions that Schwartz had applies here.
An interesting side note for all those that place credence in Mr. Hutchinson's eyewitness testimony. The husband that picked out Mr. Butler had also made several mistakes about the clothing worn by the assailant.(This includes the dress he believed the actual assailant wore as well as the clothing that Mr. Butler wore.) Very few details of the suspects attire and appearance even fitted the actual clothing that the tourists assailant actually wore. Yet the husband had better conditions to view the assailant than Hutchinson did. The distances between suspect and witness were about the same, however the lighting was much better, as well as the killer staring directly at the husband, not trying to disguise his appearance in anyway.
Just a little F.Y.I. for everyone.
Cheers,
Chris H. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 03:15 pm | | Hi, Chris H:
There is an interesting book by sometime Ripper author Richard Whittington-Egan called The Ordeal of Philip Yale Drew about an American stage actor and silent movie star accused of murdering a tobacconist in Reading, England, in 1929. While Drew was never tried, he was "tried" in a coroner's court and numerous people swore he was the man they had seen acting suspiciously in the street around 6:00 pm in the evening when the murder occurred. In the minds of the Reading police and of Scotland Yard, he seems to have been viewed as the murderer although no fingerprint evidence or other forensic evidence could put him at the murder scene. The other thing about the case is that just as with the eyewitness testimony in the murder by shooting of Mrs. Butler that you cite, which occurred as I recall in Florida a few years ago, as well as in the Ripper case, the witnesses failed to agree on the clothing worn by the man they saw acting suspiciously in the street around the time of the murder--who may or may not have been the American actor.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 03:39 pm | | In recent studies, overwhelming evidence has been produced that show an individual of one race or ethnic background has trouble identifing a person of another race or ethnic background. Therefore, it is not surprising that Mr. Butler made a false ID of the murderer. As a former police officer, I have learned to take witness statements with less than a grain of salt.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 10:56 pm | | Hutchinson stood three minutes in front of Mary Kelly and Mr Astrakhan (less than ten yards far) staring at the couple.
The same couple passed him (nearly touching him) moments before when he was quite under a lamp.
The lodging house in front of Miller's Court had a lamp hanging on the wall.
Further up Miller's Court there was another.
No fog that night that could have reduced luminosity.
Not a lot of humidity either (no more in any case than the morning of the 30st of September).
There is a lot to bet that there were quite some lamps in Dorset street (a lot of Lodging houses).
Now, Chris, just ponder how many of these details were present as Israel Schwartz was quickly passing the spot where he said he saw an assault.
Then go back to your list of "most reliable Ripper Witness" and ask yourself : Is all right here ?
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Both made a deposition to the police (voluntarily), both were interrogated by the press.
One of them changed little details, the other gave quite two different versions. Guess who the latter was.
One could have been (and probably was) identified by Sarah Lewis, the other was not corroborated (incredibly) by anyone. Again, guess who the latter was and tell me one reason why he should be considered a reliable witness. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 08:28 am | | Hi Graziano,
I'm glad to see the man 'some say is worse than Jack' is still here. :-))
A further note about Israel Schwartz. He supposedly doesn't speak much English and yet he clearly hears the name 'Lipski'. Not an insignificant detail. An argument can be made that Israel Lipski, if truly guilty, was responsible for possibly the first murder in the series of cult murders.
Having said that, if I were to SET the morning line on the 'Saucy Jacky Stakes', I wouldn't make Hutchinson the chalk. But I do think he deserves some late play and should be considered a possible dark horse. I don't know why - but every time I see Hutchinson's name I get an image of an orange with black spots. Just like I do with Anderson and Barnardo.
Rob |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 09:04 am | | Hi, Rob:
You used an interesting image at the end of your post to describe George Hutchinson ... an orange with black spots. 
In regard to the supposed cry of "Lipski!" witnessed by Israel Schwartz near the scene of Liz Stride's murder, newspaper reports show that Israel Lipski's wife was taunted with cries of "Lipski" after his 1887 execution, so the term was well-known in the East End both as a taunt to Lipski's family and as a pejorative term for Jews in general. No doubt then Israel Schwartz had no trouble recognizing the name used. Of course, though, there is the question about whether the name called out was actually "Lizzie!" and Schwartz misheard it as "Lipsky!" This is where his closeness to the scene comes into play not only for how much he saw and could recall but for what he was able to hear reliably as well.
All the best
Chris |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 09:29 am | | The problem with the supposed cry of "Lipski/Lizzie", Chris George, is that it wasn't heard neither by Fanny Mortimer ( who was able to hear people walking outside her door) nor by Mrs Diemshutz (who worked in the kitchen with the door open).
Both were within, very within, hearing distance from the spot.
Not to speak about the couple standing in Fairclough street.
They seem even to have missed Schwartz, Pipeman and the whole accident.
By the way (and just for fun), Lipski and Schwartz had the same first name.
Doesn't Schwartz mean Black in german ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 09:50 am | | Hi Chris,
While on the subject of images, the press sketch of the suspect that appeared on Oct 6th has always reminded me of the wonderful actor Peter Lorre. Coincidentally, of course, he was born in Hungary (in 1904 in what is now Czechoslovakia), just like our favorite "witness", Israel Schwartz. So, maybe that image could depict a Hungarian. But, as my older brother likes to tell me, "that's a stretch", and I agree. However, some reports say Lorre was born in Rosenberg, Hungary and Maurice Kosminski's wife, who lives down the street, was named Rosenberg and they had a child named Israel and....well, you get the idea...it's a stretch, I know.:-)) Still, maybe that image is of a Hungarian, possibly..no..maybe?
Rob |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 12:03 pm | | Hi, Rob:
Some interesting thoughts re Peter Lorre and Israel Schwartz! A stretch as you say, but nonetheless interesting observations. I don't know Peter Lorre's background but wonder if he was Jewish. Does anyone know?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 01:30 pm | | Thanks Chris, and yes, it seems Peter Lorre, born Ladiszlav (Laszlo) Lowenstein, was Jewish. Interestingly, as well, he fled Germany when Hitler used his likeness for anti-Jewish propaganda. As I'm sure you know, he was made famous by his role as a pedophile murderer in the film "M". Sometimes it seems that "M" is the key symbolism at the center of this case as well. Or, more to the point, perhaps it is close but 'no cigar'.oooh :-))
Rob |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 08:11 am | | Hi Graz,
Actually Hutchinson didn't stand directly in front of the suspect and Mary for three minutes. He had maybe thirty seconds(If even that) to stare at the suspect's front side, as he stood under the lamp at the Queen's Head.(However, he was able not only to notice the spats the watch with the thick gold chain and the Red Seal(which by the ways was under the suspects two coats, so Hutchinson must have X-ray Vision now?), not to mention to notice the color of the man's eyelashes were and how bushy his eyebrows were.
The three minutes you speak of is the time that Mary and the Suspect stood in front of the entrance to Miller's court. Hutchinson was probably standing outside the Britania at the time. And if Mary is leading the suspect, then the suspect's back would have been towards Hutchinson the entire time. It wasn't until after these three minutes that he 'went to the court to see if he could see them but could not'. This position was probably the same spot that he was seen at by Sarah Lewis.
Also there as are many changes between Schwartz's newspaper item as with Hutchinson's. Schwartz's could be explained by the same thread that Hutchinson had that he remembered things better as he rolled about it in his mind.(Which is a valid point, ask any Lawyer or Police Officer who has ever had to question a witness several times.) Also we have that Schwartz's testimony had to be translated both times, so some things could have been lost or misconstrued in the translation.(Look at how many different versions of the bible there are that have been translated from the original language.) This plus we also have that the paper reporting Schwartz's story is 'The Star', which did like a MORE SENSATIONAL story, so there is a possibilty(yet I won't use that as evidence, since it is a small one) that the whole knife bit was made up to sell more papers.
As to Mortimer, she had stated she was standing at her front door the whole time the murder took place, yet she didn't see anything or anybody. So she may be a little off on the time. However, the shout of 'Lipski/Lizzie' may not have been very loud. Like you said, Mrs. Diemschutz didn't hear it over the mild din of music from the club, nor did the couple outside the Bee Hive Pub on Fairclough, so if it was a shout it wasn't very loud. And the couple of Fairclough Street may not have noticed two guys simply walking across Fairclough as they move further down Berner Street.
But there IS evidence that Schwartz was at least in the area. This comes to light by the post mortem on Elizabeth Stride. The two small bruises on her chest near her shoulders, could EASILY have been caused when the suspect seen by Schwartz threw her to the ground(or maybe tried to catch her and she slipped). There is no way for Schwartz to have known about these bruises, or more to the point what could have caused them, unless he saw the body(which wouldn't have happened until after he gave his statement, just to verify that Stride was the woman he saw), he was the killer himself and forced Stride on the ground, or that he witnessed what he witnessed. This is just as much evidence for Schwartz's Testimony as that of Sarah Lewis spotting Hutchinson by Crossinghams.
By the way, according to the maps I've seen the only lamps in the region of Dorset Street are:
1.) The one by the Queen's Head.
2.) The one in front of the Britannia.
3.) The one by the entrance to Crossingham's Lodging House.
4.) The one in the center of Miller's Court.
Also one other note on Hutchinson's suspect. If Hutchinson truly did see this man, there is still a MAJOR possibilty that this man was not the killer. According to the Post Mortem evidence, Mary Kelly wasn't killed till around 3:30 - 4 a.m. So that gave Hutchinson's suspect 45 minutes to leave Mary, and another man come and kill her. Also, more evidence that points around this time of death is the testimony of Mary Ann Cox. She stated she passed by Mary's room at 3 a.m. and there was no light on. So the killer has the interval between three seperate points to murder, mutilate, and clean up after himself. Around 2 a.m. when he goes into Mary's room. 2:30 a.m. when Sarah Lewis goes into the court(yet hears no noise coming from Mary's room as she passes it.). And 3 a.m. when there is no light in Mary's room as Mary Ann Cox walks by.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 12:17 pm | | Chris,
certainly you are very good.
But take that:
a) Hutchinson never said the coat(s) of the suspect was (were) buttoned up. He would not necessarily have to be provided with X-rays eyes to see under.
b) Hutchinson was very interested in the couple (let us forget for now the reasons). Thus he stared at them as long as he could. He did it (as you say) from different perspectives.
From the front, from the back, from the side, while they were walking, while they were standing.
c) The lamps you mention are all along the way the couple and/or Hutchinson would have walked or around where they would have stood at any given moment of the episode. Had they been the only, they would have already sufficed to cast light all around the couple and Hutchinson at any moment.
Sarah Lewis was able to differenciate the colours of the clothes of Hutchinson.
I do not see anything in all these details that could be used against his testimony.
Neither did Abberline.
d) The differences between Hutchinson's statement at the police station and what he did say to the press are details: pale/dark complexion and slight/heavy moustache.
From what comes out from Swanson's report Schwartz is a person going away to avoid a row.
What is coming out from the version of "The Star", Schwartz run away afraid for his life.
Is not only a question to make the episode more sensational adding a knife. There is more than that.
e) "As to Mortimer, she had stated she was standing at her front door the whole time the murder took place, yet she didn't see anybody or anything. So she may be a little off on the time."
Or maybe there wasn't anybody or anything to see.
f) "The couple in Fairclough street may not have noticed two guys simply walking across...".
So, are we to believe Schwartz when he said he ran away or not ?
Not only the couple in Fairclough street did not see Schwartz running scared away and/or Mr Pipeman, but they also did not hear the cry of "Lipski" or the shouting of Elizabeth Stride.
Nor did Morris Eagle and/or Joseph Lave.
Who, by the way, were not seen by Fanny Mortimer.
g) "There is no way for Schwartz to have known about the bruises, or more to the point that could have caused them...".
Nobody said he did.
He came along to tell there was a row.
That's all.
In the way he said the man took hold of Elizabeth Stride it is difficult for me to imagine how the two small (likely symmetric) bruises on her chest near the shoulders could have been caused.
It's much more easy to imagine them caused by someone grasping the body under the armpits to move it.
What Schwartz says is only this: "The murderer came from the street".
Of course, there is the possibility that the man Hutchinson saw was not the killer (for the reason you state).
That's why Hutchinson was not considered the witness who had been the more likely one to have had a good look at Jack.
I think nevertheless that he was the killer waiting for his accomplice to come in the room.
The accomplice did not come at the time because Hutchinson spoiled the plot.
But Hutchinson, probably tired, went away saying: "I'll see her tomorrow...".
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 05 April 2002 - 08:09 am | | Hi Graz,
A few things to add to your points.
A.) Hutchinson did claim that the interior coat the suspect was buttoned. At least to the sketch artist who did the 'caricature'(as Peter claims) of the supsect he saw at the scene.
B.) Yes the lights give Hutchinson PLENTY of perspectives to look at the suspect, but he only has one 30 second or less opportunity to stare at the suspects front. Yet within this 30 second opportunity(which Hutchinson states he is trying to stare at the gentleman's face, as the man tries to hide it) He is able to notice the eyelashes, eyebrows, the ornate material of the watch(which is under a buttoned coat), as well as the spats on the front of the gentleman's shoes. So Hutchinson must have had the powers of observation that Sherlock Holmes was so famous for, however, the man couldn't hold down a decent job.(I mean with this attention to detail, and photographic memory, he would have been an EXCELLENT clerk, or inventory taker in the docks.)
C.) Nothing really to add to this asides from the fact that I agree with you that it is sufficent light to cast on the scene.
D.) & F.) According to Schwartz's testimony to the Police, he didn't run away afraid until he noticed the second man was following him. Which may have happened after he had crossed Fairclough Street. Now going by the Star, he may have run as soon as he saw the knife and the intruder running up to him(which as we both agree could have been added by The Star as sensationalisim.) Also we don't know that the couple at the end of Fairclough Street were standing outside the Bee Hive Pub, when Schwartz crossed Fairclough. They were there when those from the club ran past 15 to 20 minutes later, so there is the possibilty that they weren't there when Schwartz was.
E.) According to your arguement about Mortimer,'Maybe there wasn't anybody or anything to see'. Then Elizabeth Stride's murder didn't take place. Mortimer said she stood outside her place from 12:30 to 1 a.m. So she missed the gentleman(Lave or Eagle? Sorry don't have any of my material near me at present.) entering the yard at 12:30 to go into the club. She missed the killer and Stride entering the yard, as well as missed Diemschutz coming down the street to enter the yard.
G.) Actually there are only two bruises to the chest, so it's easier to believe that they were caused as someone wrapped their hands around her shoulders from the front(I.E. that his thumbs made the bruises), rather than one wrapping his arms underneath her armpits(thusly his palms would have been pressed against her chest, thumbs against her upper arms or shoulder), to pull her.
I won't deny that Jack may have had an accomplice, there is a possibility that he did. However, where was the accomplice to distract Hutchinson(or maybe deter him) from following Mary Kelly and the Suspect? This would have kept Hutchinson from being able to make such a Holmesian Description of the suspect. I guess this accomplice was just lousy at his/her job?
Ciao,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
