|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 19, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
From Hell... The Jack the Ripper Mystery (Hinton):
Archive through March 19, 2001
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:57 pm |        | It has often been lamented that the majority of "Ripper experts" attack the case from the viewpoint of an historian rather than that of a true criminal investigator, resulting in many books which, though often meticulously researched, nonetheless offer conclusions that ignore or even directly contradict modern criminological knowledge. In an attempt to modify this trend, Bob Hinton, "a middle aged magistrate from South Wales," has written his own account of the case, titled From Hell... The Jack the Ripper Mystery.
The result is one of the more promising books to emerge on the case in some time. Hinton successfully uses his background as a law official to provide new insights into many aspects of the case, including the authenticity of the Ripper letters and the veracity of many witness descriptions. Many analogies are drawn between the Ripper murders and some more modern cases he has worked on or studied, providing an insight into the mind of our faceless killer few books have so successfully described. Hinton also provides some lessons on basic investigative method, motivations for murder, and how to tell whether or not a witness is fabricating their statement. All of this is offered to the reader in a simple, easy-to-understand manner, and then seamlessly integrated into the Ripper analysis. The result is an intelligent, and often convincing, re-examination of the facts.
This strict analysis of the case comprises the first 220 pages of this 270 page book -- a fortunate thing, for this leaves only the last fifty pages to be devoted to the unveiling of the man he believes to be Jack the Ripper... Miller's Court witness, George Hutchinson. After devoting an entire chapter to systematically dismissing Druitt, Kosminski, Maybrick, Tumblety, and Barnett as suspects against whom there exists "not a shred of evidence," he sets forth an elaborate interpretation of George Hutchinson as a stalker who starts killing prostitutes because of his [unrequited] obsession with Mary Kelly. The evidence for this? Good question. I couldn't find any.
Regardless of the rather disappointing conclusion, the bulk of the text provides a number of fantastic new insights into the case which more than merits a place for this book on every Ripperphile's bookshelf. My only complaint, aside from the "George the Stalker" theory, is that at least one newspaper reference was obviously lifted from our own Casebook web pages, and yet no mention is made of our humble site within the list of works consulted... come on, Bob! =)
Readers interested in ordering the book (and/or expressing their unbridled outrage over our omission from the text!) can write to:
Old Bakehouse Publications
The Old Bakehouse
Church Street, Abertillery
Gwent NP3 1EA
Tel: 01495 212600
Fax: 01495 216222
Prices: £7.50 UK -- $12.00 US (shipping is extra) |
Author: Bert Coules
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:45 pm | | Over on the old Book Reviews pages, I said of this volume:
This is without a doubt the worse-written professionally published book it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. Mr Hinton's prose would disgrace a ten-year old and his grasp of punctuation is limited to the comma (of which he is inordinately fond), the occasional full stop and the exclamation mark. This latter he likes so much that uses as many as eleven at a time: "Jack the Ripper!!!!!!!!!!!" Even if the content proves to be compelling and unique... there is no excuse for such a slovenly, insulting piece of work.
To which Mr Hinton replied, in part:
Dear Mr Coules, Are you saying you don't like my book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on don't beat about the bush come right out and say it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so sorry you have been forced to wade through something that obviously gives you no pleasure, however at least my writing prompted you to action so perhaps it can't be all bad. I would be the first to admit that my command of the English language and grammatical rules thereof are not of the highest standard, why should they be?
And here is my response:
But Mr Hinton, by publishing your book in the commercial marketplace and asking people to pay good money for it, you are - whether you like it or not - presenting the product as a professional piece of work, open to criticism at a professional level.
So you can't complain and hide behind excuses when professional standards are applied.
Bert Coules |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 12:05 pm | | Dear Mr Coules,
Thank you for your reply. I feel you are miss-representing me. I am
certainly not complaining about your posting. Why should I? It is merely
your opinion, and I am free to accept it or dismiss it as I see fit.
I notice you didn't reproduce my answer completely. You seem to have
missed out the bit where I said "I'm sorry you feel so insulted by my work,
luckily those people I consider to be most knowledgeable about the subject
didn't." By most knowledgeable I mean those people who are well
established authorities not only on JTR but on writing.
When I receive most favourable reviews from these people, why should I
concern myself unduly with what you say?
If you didn't enjoy my book then fine, I've never known a book yet that
has pleased everyone (not even the Bible), but as long as more people
enjoy it than dislike it I will count myself satisfied.
All the best Bert, and a Happy Christmas!
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bert Coules
Friday, 27 November 1998 - 02:05 am | | No, I didn't reproduce your post in its entirety, but I was careful to make it quite clear that I was quoting selectively.
You said in your original reply:
"I would be the first to admit that my command of the English language and grammatical rules thereof are not of the highest standard, why should they be?"
and I realize that I never really answered that question, so I'll try now: command of language and of grammar are absolutely fundamental to the craft of writing. If you blatantly confess ignorance of these basics, and refuse to make even the minimal effort needed to identify and correct crass errors such as "miss-represent", why should your readers believe that any concern or care or effort went into other aspect of your book?
In short, if an author can't be bothered to check his spelling, why should his factual research be considered trustworthy?
Bert Coules |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 27 November 1998 - 01:34 pm | | | I'd just like to quietly observe that while I agree with the intent of Mr Coules criticism about good writing, having worked on both sides of the fence, that is in publishing and as an author, it has to be said that not even 'professional' writers always have a command of vocabulary, grammar or spelling (especially in non-fiction areas where they more often have a specialist knowledge). What they do have is a backup team of editors and proof-readers who save their more serious mistakes from being made public. Small publishers often don't have this backup (and the self-published don't have it at all). In such cases mistakes are many and often obvious. But this doesn't mean and should not be taken to mean that the author knows less about the subject or pays any less attention to his research than does a 'professional'. The research and conclusions drawn therefrom should be judged on their own merits. Whatever the defects of Bob's book, don't you think Stephen Ryder's review highlights some positive aspects of the book? And in the long run, aren't these somewhat more important than the author's command of grammar and spelling? Just a thought. |
Author: Bert Coules
Friday, 27 November 1998 - 08:34 pm | | Paul,
Thanks for the contribution. I understand exactly your point about the editorial checking and general backup available to those lucky enough to be published by a major house. But I would go on to argue that a self-publisher therefore needs to be aware of this lack and make special effort to overcome it.
Dictionaries are cheap. Guides to grammar are plentiful. And I feel very strongly - as I said in my original response - that to adopt a cavalier attitude of "it doesn't matter" is to insult one's readers.
I didn't say that Mr Hinton knew less about his subject or devoted less time to research than a professional writer; I said that a general reader might well gain that impression.
As it happens, I am perfectly prepared to believe that Mr Hinton's research was exemplary and that his insights are valuable; it saddens me that the slapdash presentation and inept prose might well get in the way of said insights, for some.
You say "in the long run, aren't (the positive aspects)... somewhat more important than the author's command of grammar and spelling?" and all I can say is, that for me, no, they're not.
Bert Coules |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 05:59 am | | I would agree that dictionaries and grammar guides are plentiful. They will not, however, be of any use if whomever is employing them is ignorant of standard English usage. While I do not agree with Mr Coules that "From Hell" is the "worse-written" (for which I believe he meant to type "worst written") book on the subject of the Ripper, it does suffer from the annoying characteristic of reading as though it were dictated rather than written (a fault it shares with William Beadle's otherwise excellent "JTR: Anatomy of a Myth").
Someone who self-publishes a book certainly does need to be aware of their limitations and make a good-faith effort to produce the best product they can. However, if everyone connected with the creation of a work allows certain idiosyncracies of prose and punctuation to slip by, is it always the author's fault? Even though they have no-one more knowledgeable to correct them?
I understand Mr Coules' point. I sympathise with it. But to broadly swipe at "From Hell" because of its literary stumbles - and leave the general reader with an impression that the book is useless because of those stumbles - is, I think a disservice to the book, to its author and to its reviewer. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 12:37 pm | | | I agree with you CM - no offence, Mr Coules, though I do agree that a greater care should be taken by the self-published and that the cavalier attitude is unacceptable (but I think Bob Hinton was probably asking why he in particular should have a command of spelling and grammar, not that he had no need to try to triple-check his spelling and grammar). The point raises an important issue, however, in that as it seems that for many getting a book published on the Ripper means going to a small publisher or publishing oneself (six or more come to mind), production standards should be given considerable priority. Who knows, maybe the next thing we'll find is Stephen Ryder offering "Casebook Editorial Services". Maybe even Casebook Publishing"! |
Author: Bert Coules
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 03:01 pm | | I stand humbled (and suitably embarrassed) by Christopher Michael's correction of my phrase "worse written", and though I would draw a distinction between hurried (and expensive) typing while on-line and leisurely preparation of a text for book publication, I accept that in small measure I'm guilty of exactly the fault I levelled at Mr Hinton.
Incidentally, and while we're debating the niceties of English usage, I didn't "broadly swipe" at Mr Hinton's book. What I did was to swipe broadly.
Bert Coules |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 05:22 pm | | There is, of course, a simple answer to Bert Coules' problem of "hurried (and expensive) typing while online". Why not compose your message offline in Word or whatever, then paste it into the message window when you're happy with it? I sympathise with your predicament, Bert - it is a pain being saddled with timed charges for the phone call involved - but that doesn't mean we can't post longer, more in-depth comments without having to have one eye on the clock!
Furthermore, to concur with the comments of other contributors to this board, I was disappointed that you concentrated so much on the linguistic failings of this book, to the exclusion of a critique of its content. I might put up with bad grammar if the argument is interesting and relevant - but your review doesn't really give any enlightenment in this respect! Please let us know what you think of Hinton's views - your comments would, I'm sure, be welcome. |
Author: Bert Coules
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 08:22 pm | | Guy, thank you for your comments. At the risk of bashing this subject into insensibility and beyond, I'd like to make one final point: you say:
"I was disappointed that you concentrated so much on the linguistic failings of this book, to the exclusion of a critique of its content."
We differ in this approach: my belief is that the way in which a book is written is an integral part of its content, not something which can be considered as separate from it.
This means, alas, that I find it difficult to comment properly on Mr Hinton's views and research. For what it's worth, I found his initial review of the murders differed little from those offered by other writers, and while I found his central section more interesting, his promising "Hutchinson-as-stalker" premise which forms the book's main thrust suffered from a lack of any convincing evidence.
But these views are - I completely accept it - coloured by my reaction to the writing. In all probability, Mr Hinton could have had the greatest and most insightful theories in the world - he could have had irrefutable proof of the killer's identity - and I still would have disliked his book intensely.
This is, perhaps, my loss; but a deep respect for the craft of putting words onto paper was instilled in me too well and too long ago for me to change my opinion now.
Bert Coules |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 10:31 pm | | Mr Coules appears to have taken my post with good humour; I should hasten to add that I meant no disrespect and was not trying to play a game of "gotcha" in response to grammatical gaffes. As I said previously, I respect his point and deeply sympathise with it.
I suppose that in the issue of fairness, I should add that what bothered me about Mr Hinton's book was not so much the literary style but the reasons adduced for proposing George Hutchinson as a stalker. I found those rather difficult to believe.
Paul raises an interesting point; perhaps aspiring authors should make inquiries to the Casebook for editorial assistance! God knows there are enough of us on-line with expertise that a call for distress might not go unanswered. :-)
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Bert Coules
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 02:23 am | | Christopher-Michael,
(And my apologies for omitting the hyphen previously)
Mr Coules appears to have taken my post with good humour; I should hasten to add that I meant no disrespect and was not trying to play a game of "gotcha" in response to grammatical gaffes."
I assure you that no disrespect was suspected. Happily, this whole discussion seeems to have been conducted in good humour. Looking back, I see that my original post was written in annoyance and a degree of anger, and I admit that the language was intemperate. My apologies to Mr Hinton and anyone else who may have felt offended.
"Paul raises an interesting point; perhaps aspiring authors should make inquiries to the Casebook for editorial assistance! God knows there are enough of us on-line with expertise that a call for distress might not go unanswered. :-)"
A splendid idea. The combination of one person's research and enthusiasm and another's skill with words could produce some extremely worthwhile results. The problem is going to be convincing some authors that they do in fact need the help...
Bert Coules |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 12:33 pm | | Dear All,
I have been reading the recent postings with great interest. I think that Mr
Coules has given us all an object lesson in how to conduct ourselves on
the net.
He started with a premise that he voiced with great passion and feeling,
defended his corner against all comers then was big enough to suggest that
perhaps an apology was in order. Well done sir!
Your gracious apology is accepted in the same spirit it was offered, thank
you.
It is an interesting subject though and one I think worthy of discussion.
Whilst fully understanding Mr Coules point I would like to offer the
following.
Isn't there a danger that if every creation (not just writing) was bound by
the strictest of rules and regulations you would end up with a conveyor
belt output of bland mediocrity. In other words the end result would bear
more of the stamp of the editors and censors rather than the original artist.
We already see the results of over zealous editing and control now in the
newspapers. I remember giving an interview to a reporter about a certain
murder I was investigating. When the story appeared it bore no
resemblance to what I had said, even to the extent of talking about an
entirely different crime. When I queried this with the editor I was told that
it was felt that this other crime was more interesting than the one I was
investigating!
What would happen if Van Gogh was forced to conform to the accepted
standards of painting, or D H Lawrence the strict format of the novel?
Don't forget if every artist conforms to the mould - where do we find the
mould breakers?
Should we prevent those writers who do not posses formal qualifications
in the English language from writing, or should we insist all should pass
tests before being allowed to publish. What would you do with dyslexic
writers? To do so would be to stifle that which is so very precious in any
art form - creative enthusiasm. Where does that leave the authors
individual style?
Christopher-Michael commented that he didn't like my 'dictation' type
style, and yet one of the nicest compliments about my book was paid to
me by a person who has been involved in books and authors for many
years. She said "Reading your book was just like you sitting opposite and
talking to me". I don't think it is possible to find a style of writing or
painting or anything else that pleases everybody, the best the artist can
hope for is to say 'Here is my offering - make of it what you will', and in
the end if more people enjoy your work than dislike it, that's the best you
can hope for.
I sincerely believe though that Mr Coules could have a very valuable
contribution to make to future authors in the field of grammar and correct
English usage. I would certainly be more than happy to contact him with
my next book.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bert Coules
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 01:39 pm | | Mr Hinton: thank you for your kind words.
Your main point is an interesting one, though (as you won't be surprised to read, I'm sure) I find it hard to agree with your painting analogy. There is a difference, surely, between "breaking the rules" as a deliberate act of artistic self-expression and doing so out of ignorance.
Re-reading the above, I'm sorry to see that it sounds like yet another personal attack; please believe me when I say that this is not my intention.
As an example of what I mean, consider James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake - written in a deliberately non-realistic prose style, with mis-spelt words, wayward grammar and wild and whirling logic. This is surely the literary equivalent of a Van Goch or a Picasso, and is a million miles away from unpunctuated, undisciplined prose produced because the author knew no better.
I am all in favour of individuality and pushing back the boundaries of art; but there are precious few geniuses amongst us, alas.
Bert |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 27 December 1998 - 01:12 am | | Before reviewing this book’s contents, a word on its presentation is required. Much has been made of Mr. Hinton’s grammar and his writing style in the previous reviews. For this reason and because this reviewer cannot throw stones in glass houses, little will be added here. However, it must be noted that ‘From Hell…’ has a conversational style about it. The author lapses into a first or (usually) second person narrative regularly. Often this is completely unnecessary, since the offending sentence could have been reworded with minimal thought. Taking this along with other faults like careless use of the spell checker, as in ‘Mitre square and Church passage…’ on page 146, there is no doubt that this book would have benefited by better editing. Overall this reviewer’s enjoyment of the book was not spoilt by the narrative, but the style does grate.
Now let’s continue this review by putting my cards firmly on the table. Like some of the other bit players in Ripper history, such as Kidney, McCarthy and Schwartz, George Hutchinson is a character who has long interested me. By his own admission he spoke to a Ripper victim just a couple of hours before she was murdered; he admitted following her and an alleged suspect back to her home; he described this music hall villain in great detail despite poor light and he was late in going to the police with his testimony. The behaviour of just another dodgy witness – or something more sinister? To learn from The Casebook that Bob Hinton had written a book naming Hutchinson as the killer made “From Hell...” a ‘must read’.
Mr. Hinton is a Welsh magistrate. His experience of the law and his interest in JTR both go back a number of years. This allows him to bring a different perspective to the case, one that is both original and interesting to the reader. His descriptions of the murders themselves, and of the victims tell us nothing startlingly new, but his description of the murder sites and the on-the-ground detective work reveals one of his strengths. For instance he has gone to the trouble of locating the nearest street lamps to all the murder scenes. This allows us to judge the accuracy with which the murderer could perform his specific acts of ghastly mutilation, as well as the quality of light in which the various witnesses reported their sitings. Distances of the bodies from lamps, windows etc. are painstakingly recorded (in good old imperial measurement), the weather and air temperature are given and the search for clues, such as blood spots does not escape the author’s attention. On this score Hinton is critical of the manner in which the immediate investigations were conducted, complaining about the contamination of the crime scenes. At senior level he is critical of the police infighting between themselves and with the Home Secretary. Certainly, he is no fan of Sir Charles Warren or Robert Anderson.
For the most part Mr. Hinton does not hold conspiratorial views. His interpretation of solutions which rely on cover-ups; of the Goulston Street writing on the wall and of the Ripper correspondence show a refreshing application of common sense. Never afraid to give his opinion, the author frequently takes the trouble to announce to the reader when he is speculating – a welcome change from some other books. He does so before writing a long interpretation of Stride’s murder by her paramour Michael Kidney, whom he believes had discovered that Long Liz was seeing another man that night. It was at this point that the alarm bells began to ring for your reviewer, not because Stride’s killing is not ascribed to the Ripper, as is the modern trend, but because of some of the questionable logic and unsupported suppositions (such as Kidney’s escape route) which this section contains. But more of this later.
Throughout the book real life criminal cases from the post-war era are sited to illustrate points which the author is making. Whilst the use of comparisons can be misleading, Hinton doesn’t abuse or overuse these stories. Clearly, he has a wide knowledge of crime in Britain and he has turned this fact to his advantage through these verbal illustrations.
So, following the now obligatory section on serial killers (again well described with comparisons), and the tried and tested formula of debunking other theories it is time for Mr. Hinton to reveal his own suspect on page 216. Unfortunately this is the point in the book where the wheels come off. We do learn that Hutchinson was born at Shadwell in 1859; that he was once a barman in Clerkenwell; that he resided at The Victoria Home for Working Men in Commercial Street (its location being traced correctly), and that he had moved from it prior to the 1891 census. Over and above this we find out nothing about him.
Substituted for facts from this point on is a lot of speculation about Hutch’s mental state with the accusation that he was what we would now call a stalker. No criminal or medical evidence is offered to this effect. Obsessed with Mary Kelly, Hutchinson rampages through Whitechapel killing prostitutes because he believes them to be in some way responsible for her downfall. Eddowes, about whom Hinton previously writes a thoughtful and highly plausible piece to the effect that she was not a prostitute, was apparently out to bribe him. No evidence to connect Hutchinson with the scene of the crimes or with any victim except Kelly is offered.
The credibility of Hutchinson as a witness over the years has rested primarily on the acceptance of his statement by Inspector Abberline. Rather than explaining why this might be, Hinton turns everything on its head! He thinks that Abberline disbelieved Hutchinson and only pretended otherwise. Unfortunately he does not then go on to explore the consequences of his statement; the subsequent Ripper investigation, the writings and comments of former police officers or the complete lack of documentary proof for any of his suppositions.
For those of us who are interested in learning more about our boy, the book’s conclusions are most disappointing. Hutch is still an enigma and we know nothing more about him, his statement or his why he was considered a good witness as a result of reading this book. There is certainly no evidence that his middle name was Jack.
My other main criticism is that a modern work should contain more illustrations than this one. What photographs there are all stem from the modern era. Surely some contemporary pictures could have been found, especially of the market areas around Goulston and Wentworth Streets. A good map would not have gone amiss either.
That said, “From Hell…” is a still good read – at least the first three-quarters of it is. The arguments are clearly put and the book holds the reader’s attention well, (unless he or she is unable to ignore all its grammatical faults like some previous reviewers). I would defy anybody to call this book dull. Mr. Hinton should be congratulated on some of his research and on his original approach to the case. “From Hell…” retails at GBP7.50 which apparently includes post and packing, (the copy reviewed was obtained from a library), making it good value for money. Worth a read. V |
Author: RED DEMON
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 02:34 am | | PLEASE HELP!!!
If anyone could tell me how to get ahold of this book, please do. E-mail me, if you would. Thank you. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 04:32 am | | RED DEMON: Hi. The author of "From Hell" - Bob Hinton - is/was a semi-regular poster here on Casebook ... Haven't "seen" him in last few weeks. His publisher can be contacted direct for info:
Bakehouse Publications,
Church Street,
Abertillery, Gwent, NP3 1EA,
United Kingdom
Hope this helps a bit.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 02:02 am | | Hello,
Recently I was finally able to get a copy of this book, and I'm glad I did. While Mr. Hinton's prose did indeed 'grate' as Viper put it, when I look back now at the book all I see is what I got out of it, and I suppose that's all that matters. Do I think Hutchinson was the Ripper? No, and here's why...Jack the Ripper walked away from the scene of his crimes with unquestionable (except for the amount) blood on his person, and on more than one occasion with organs in hand. George Hutchinson lived in a crowded doss house. There's no way George could have straggled into the doss house with a kidney under one arm and a uterus under another. How does Mr. Hinton get around this? By suggesting that Hutchinson didn't take the organs away at all, but that rats or dogs came and ate the organs before the police arrived, or that the surgeons simply missed these organs upon their autopsy! On that alone I believe Hutchinson lost his validity. Other points of interest are mentioned by 'The Viper' above.
I will say that if anyone takes Hutchinson's witness testimony at face value, I implore you to read this book. Mr. Hinton shines in his discrediting of Hutchinson's eye witness statements. If George Hutchinson was lying when he gave his statement (which he probably was) it was most likely because another witness (whose name skips me at the moment) saw him standing outside of Kelly's place and gave a description of him. When he read this description as well as the announcement by the police that they believe an accomplice was involved he figured it was only a matter of time before an investigation led to him. Therefore, he went to the police and made up a suspect who was the polar opposite of him in appearance, meanwhile explaining his presence there that night. Unfortunately, he was a little too eager in his giving. This is all assuming, of course, that Hutchinson was indeed lying.
Anyhow, there is some very good research within the pages of Bob's book, and I'm very happy to have it on my shelf. I wasn't aware that it was a self-published book. Are you sure it is? It's far more attractive than most self-published books.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Whatever happened to ol' Bob on these boards? I haven't seen him since I've been back. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 05:16 am | | Poor George Hutchinson,a fellow overlooked and put down by many.Is that truly deserving.Nothing much is known about him,he appears,takes the limelight for a while then fades away,Very much like the ripper.
He was described in one instance as of neat dress and soldierly bearing,and we can accept that in the face to face interview with Aberline he must have been of convincing speech and manner for Aberline to accept his story.
So really there is nothing of his known mentality or physical being that would debar him from being the ripper.He had lodgings central to the murders,had resided in Whitechapel long enough to be familiar with the district,claimed to have known one of the victims well,and is the only known male to have been at the scene of a killing,in peculiar circumstances.
We do not know the situation of his room in the Victorian Building.Perhaps it was in such a position that he could come and go unnoticed.Such habitats were rather gloomy structures with little or no illumination in passages or stairways,and it would be a matter of just seconds
only to enter or leave the premises.
If the killer could take his victim through 29 Hanbury Street,kill her,take what body parts he wanted then leave without disturbing the numerous residents within,then entering a similar establishment with those body parts,would seem to me,to be of little difficulty.
Did he have to carry exposed body parts through the streets and into a residence.Would not a thoughtful killer,as the ripper undoughtably was,have foreseen this eventuallity and taken some article which would conceal such parts.
In the earlier murders it has been questionable whether there would be much blood staining to the clothes,in the Kelly slaying it is certain there would be much.He might have overcome this problem by wearing an overcoat during the murder and mutilations,keeping the under clothing clean.He could then have burned the overcoat before leaving,and there is evidence of a fire.
Nothing of this is provable of course,but are possibilites,and it is unfortunate that information neccessary to prove the possibilities
may have once existed,but would now be impossible to secure.
H.Mann. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Harry,
You make valid points, except you are forgetting one thing...What about the organs in question! True, he may have been able to take the organs into his dwelling without notice, but what then? Where would he have hid them? You couldn't leave a piece of soap in one of those places without it being snagged, let alone jars filled with human organs! They would have at least been seen and reported. Sadly enough, Hutchinson couldn't have been our man. As to why Abberline put faith into his testimony...I'm sure that George was as convincing as he could have been, and if any doubt was left in Abberline's mind it was washed away by the fact that another witness, totally unrelated to Hutchinson, puts a man fitting his description in the same spot at the same time as he stated. Since Hutchinson had corroborated evidence for a good portion of his story (minus what he claims to have seen) then it would have been very difficult for Abberline to have dismissed his tale outright.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:50 am | | Tom,
We do not know the reason the killer took body parts or for how long he intended to keep them.
They surely would have begun to smell after a while,but such habitats were themselves full of different odours,so no suspicion would have been aroused untill the organs smell became overpowering. Before that stage was reached the killer's interest in the parts may have served their purpose,and the objects disposed of.
As for security,we do not know whether it was possible to lock the room when absent.Kelly's single room had a lock,why couldn't the Victoria building's have such.
You say 'sadly enough Hutchinson couldn't have been our man',but like others of the same conviction,not enough is added to sustain the arguement.
Sarah Lewis saw a man outside Crossingham's,but did not identify him.Hutchinson's claim would put himself there at the time Lewis indicates,and there has been no evidence or informtion that refutes this.
While his story is strongly suspect as to the sighting of Kelly and a meeting with someone,I am of the opinion that his presence there is believable.
Regards, Harry Mann. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 12:40 am | | Harry,
I thought I was clear that I too believe Hutchinson was there that night. I also think that maybe he didn't see what he said he saw. As to him being the killer, there's no way. Let me remind you that in the doss houses you do not have your own space...You rent a bed and that's it...You may not even get the same bed the next night...He was an unemployed man without means. Whoever killed those women took their organs. They took them home and masturbated to them. That is what serial killers do with their momentos. George had no home to take them to. He had nothing. As to why I think the Ripper preserved the organs it is because I believe the Lusk kidney was probably legit. Anyway, there's my two cents.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 05:19 am | | Tom,
Sure you were clear about Hutchinson's presence at Crossinghams,and it was to other doubters that I was addressing my remarks.I should have made that clear.
As to the victoria home being a doss house with dormitry style sleeping,maybe.Again I refer to 29 Hanbury St which had separate quarters for the inhabitants,could not Victoria home be the same.
Of course if it could be proved that Hutchinson shared accomodation,I would certainly Accept that he was not the killer.
Any theory must be based on the assumption that the killer had privacy,my opinion,in which he could indulge his fantasies.That proven,like Christie,he may have been able to secrete whole bodies.
Regards H.Mann. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 07:51 am | | Harry and Tom,
at the risk of bringing down a shower of "I doubt its" and "Oh no no" on my head, I'd like to mention that Barnett had private accomodation up to and including the time Kate was killed. I know Mary was with him in that room but I think he could have kept certain things secret from her. My own belief though is that (if it was Barnett) he got rid of the parts almost as soon as he took them, down some earth lavatory, or buried in some ashtip. I think the only body part he would have kept would be Mary's heart, for reasons I've stated before. Is it known what sort of accomodation Barnett got for himself at Buller's when he left off living with Mary?
Regards, Rick |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 11:11 am | | Rick and Harry,
When you share a broom closet with a woman NOTHING is private or secret. Barnett wasn't our man. Neither was Hutchinson. Whoever it was must have had his own lodgings, not a partitioned bed like at 29 Hanbury Street. I'm afraid, Rick, that I couldn't tell you right off where Barnett was staying after he left Kelly. Perhaps it's in the inquest.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:24 am | | Tom,
The type of 'Doss','digs' or lodging houses as described in the Ripper literature,were not particular to just the east end of London.They could be found the length and breadth of the British Isles.Some were operating almost unchanged
up to the middle of the 20th century,and some,though modernised are still operating today and performing the same function.
I can assure you,from my own experience of having visited such establishments as far back as the 1930's,that your description is exceedingly misleading.Though some rooms were shared,the majority were occupied by single tenants and in no instance did I see or hear of the type of partitioning that you describe.
Many couples started their marriage in such places,and indeed brought up families there.
Perhaps you like so many others,have been mislead by journalist's accounts over the years,whose stories are meant to dramatise the social conditions of gone by eras,and end by distorting the truth out of all reallity.
For instance, examine the oft repeated statement from the 30's depression years,that people could go out and leave their premises unsecured,because no money or valuables were to hand.(in England).Even on the poorest estates,there was always money,sometimes the equivalent of several weeks pay.Why?.Perhaps you can work it out,or others if they wish to try.I am sure some will know.
What I wish to emphasise is that it is sometimes wise to question events of the past,and not blindly accept.
Regards H.Mann. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Harry,
Perhaps you're right, although considering that I have read and heard about the doss houses from numerous sources, many of them reputable, and many contemporary, I didn't think I was jumping to conclusions. Apparently Bob Hinton himself was under the impression that Hutchinson's lodgings afforded him no privacy, hence the super-rat theory. Perhaps you or Bob could show some proof that Hutchinson had his own private room that no one else entered. If so, Hutchinson would indeed be a valid suspect.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 03:59 am | | Tom,
I cannot prove that Hutchinson did indeed have the privacy of a room to himself.Perhaps if the plans of the Victoria house were available,we might be able to say that there were such rooms.I can only make comparisons with like premises that catered to his type of person.
It to me seems a possibility,and as i said,we can at least put forward what seems to be reasonable assumptions.Only a person at that time would be in a good position to prove such assumptions.It is a pity that so many valid points made on these boards,were perhaps overlooked at the time,or if thought of, were either not followed through or not recorded. |
Author: A.M.P.
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 12:22 pm | | This URL connects to Jack London's "People Of The Abyss" and describes his experiences of doss houses in 1902. It may be useful.
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/chapter20.html |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 08:34 am | | Dear Everyone,
I have just been reading the recent postings, and would like to make a few comments. First of all let me try and put the 'super rat' to bed once and for all.
I have never said that rats or any other creature ate any of the missing body parts. What I said was that it is POSSIBLE. I base this on three main points.
Firstly observations made whilst serving abroad in a third world country in the early 70's, where I personally witnessed rats coming out of the sewers in broad daylight and taking away and consuming edible refuse found on the streets.
Secondly the state of a body that had only been dead for a couple of hours (in the same country) and the extent of the damage done to it by rats and other animals. Now if that could happen to a body that was relatively whole - what could happen to a body with an open body cavity?
Thirdly contemporary sources point out the ferocity of the local rat population (Mayhew for example) Kellow Chesney in his book 'The Victorian Underworld' mentions on page 124, the pigs and other animals that were fed on street rubbish around Spitalfields market.
Now given all these points I still think its a perfectly reasonable point to make that the missing body parts may have been consumed by rats or other animals.
The points made by Tom and Harry above seem to focus upon whether or not Hutchinson could have smuggled the body parts back, did he have a private room etc. and how bloodstained was he.
First off lets deal with the bloodstains or otherwise that may or may not have been found on the killer. A man wearing bloodstained clothing was quite a common sight in the area at the time. Look how many slaughterhouse men butchers etc were interviewed by the police.
Secondly by concentrating on whether or not Hutchinson had a private room, Tom and Harry are missing the main point which is: There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the missing body parts were taken away by the killer. Nicht, niet, non nothing at all! All we know is the parts were missing - there are a thousand different reasons for this to be so, only one of which is they were taken by the killer.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 01:32 pm | | Bob
I have not yet read your book so I will only comment on what I read on these boards.
It seem's to me that you are suggesting that the rats, if they removed Eddowes kidney & uterus, were not interested in extremeties. From what I understand rats when nibbling away at a body will go for fingers, ears and basically any extremity that, from their point of view, will be less dangerous than diving directly into a body cavity. They gnaw from the outside in, not inside out.
Secondly, I get the impression that you assume the Doctors, who lived and practiced among the filth and squalor of the East End, and who would likely have identified rat bites before, could not differentiate between the clean cut of a sharp knife and the ravages of dozens of little teeth.
Have I misunderstood something?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 04:53 am | | Dear Jon,
Yes you have!
Let me try again. Killer slices open victim, pulls insides outside. Area around victim is now liberally festooned with bits of intestine, kidney womb and anything else that may have been removed. Rats happen along see tasty morsel lying on ground and the rest is down to nature and a hungry tum.
Obviously I am not suggesting for one moment that the rats actually removed the items from the victim. You are almost right about how rats operate, they go for the softer tissues first, however in the case of an eviscerated corpse - its snack time! I remember my father talking about picking off rats and other creatures that were feasting on the corpses of German soldiers caught up on the wire in the desert.
By the way my book is not self published, my publishers are Bakehouse of Abertillery.(I read previously that some posters assumed by book was self published - I haven't got that big an ego- its big but not that big!)
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Stuart Dall
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 07:32 am | | ... so no chance that JTR might have been a rat like Rizzo from "The Muppets" then?
(Damn - I had this new theory I thought everyone would go for ...) |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 09:01 am | | ...and all I could picture were the rats going in and out of poor little Kenny.
"You bastards!"
--John |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 10:55 am | | Thanks for the clarification, Bob.
I once read of a Japanese torture, (Knights of Bushido?) where they tied up prisoners and placed a rat in a bucket, and placed it upside-down on the abdomen of the prisoner, tying it securly, then placed hot coals on top of the upturned bucket.......the rat would eventually be unable to stand the heat and dig its way out....
Whether this is true or not, its a picture that comes to mind every time someone mentions Bob's rodent theory......guess I should read your book, huh?
:-)
Thanks Bob
Regards, Jon |
Author: Judith Stock
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 03:21 pm | | There's also an interesting (?) episode with a rat in the Ellis book, AMERICAN PSYCHO, but for now we'll leave that unexplored territory..... it's far too pretty an afternoon, and THAT is a book best read at night!
Cheers,
Judy |
Author: Alkhemia
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 06:45 pm | | Judy:
Ah, "American Psycho" is a very interesting read - it was a bit too intense for my husband, and he ended up putting it down about halfway through. I've never looked at rats and brie cheese the same way since reading it. *shudder*
Alkhemia |
Author: Judith Stock
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 10:02 pm | | Isn't it interesting, Alkhemia, that it's mostly the male of the species that becomes the serial killers, and it's mostly women who read about it?
Maybe because there are times we'd like to be? Maybe just reading about it is enough....I know it is for me (although I DO have my moments)!
My husband had the same reaction as yours...he read to the first murder, and said, "no, no way, no thank you, not a CHANCE!!!" and that was it. ME?? I read the bloomin' thing all the way through, and even saw the movie.
The book, as in most instances, is appreciably better than the movie, and while an incredibly disturbing read, it is one that draws you back for another look several years later. It's easier the second time, becasue you're ready for what's coming, and you can observe much as the killer does.....at arm's length.
Like you, for me, brie will always have a connotation that's a bit off-putting........
Cheers,
Judy |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 03:47 am | | Bob,
I was only considering possibilities when suggesting that Hutchinson may have had a private room.He has been described as being a resident at the Victoria home,which might mean he was more than a night by night dosser.
As to a bloodstained appearance not being out of place,remember Hutchinson had been unemployed for some weeks,so he may have drawn some attention if seen in that condition by those that knew him.
Regards H.Mann. |
|
|
|
|
