|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marsh
Police Constable
Username: Marsh
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:14 am: | 
|
george hutchinson, by his own admission, stateted
that after talking to mk watch her be picked up
by a stranger, follow them,and wait 45 minutes out side the enterance of millers court.BUT WHY.
what were his reasons for waiting all that time
in the cold. |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 592
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
If there's truth in any of it, I say it was to bop Mr Astrakhan over the head to get his wallet as he left.
We'll never know. Just a thought and other ideas are just as valid.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 273
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
I am among the seemingly few people who believe that George Hutchinson was telling the truth in his statement.
To answer your question, Marsh, well, Hutchinson did say that he was kind of an 'acquaintance' of MJK's, had been for a couple of years prior to her death, and occasionally lent her a little money when she was in need. Perhaps he was even an occasional customer of Mary's. Perhaps he was in a part-time relationship with her, and 'moved in' in the absence of Joe Barnett after the argument between he and MJK just over a week earlier.
When Hutchinson allegedly saw the man with MJK, he said he was against a gas lamp outside the Queen's Head Public House. As they passed, Hutchinson stooped to look at the man. To use Hutchinson's own words, the man "looked at me stern."
Perhaps this made Hutchinson a little suspicious of the man that was with MJK, and, curious of him and possibly concerned for Mary, followed them to Miller's Court, where he waited for 45 minutes, and with no-one re-appearing, decided to leave.
I know there's a lot of guessing and speculation there, but it is just my own opinions and thoughts, nothing more. In the end, only Hutchinson would know why he would wait 45 minutes in the wet and cold.
There could be any number of reasons why.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Dear Adam,
The major problem to me with GH's statement is that apart from being factually impossible, it is totally illogical.
If GH was concerned with MJK's safety after seeing her being accosted by a stranger, which is what I believe you are implying, why then did he not come forward the very minute he heard MJK was dead?
His concern seems to manifest itself if the following way:
Sees MJK with suspicious stranger - concern kicks in.
Hears MJK has been murdered - concern evaporates.
After the inquest has been closed and the public hears that a witness saw someone outside the lodging house (GH) - concern apparently kicks in again!
I defy anyone to explain this!
Bob |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3722
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
A great summing up, Bob, and I agree with it.
Hutch,
"If there's truth in any of it, I say it was to bop Mr Astrakhan over the head to get his wallet as he left."
Yep. My thoughts as well.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
I am one of the minority that believe Huchinsons statement, I am dubious regarding the final description that was released however i feel there may have been reasons known to the police that prevented a accurate portrait of the man seen with Kelly being released.
It really is a question of the true identity of GH, is it the hard working, lover of music hall, and a talented violin player, and ice skater, or another GH we know nothing about?.
If its the former then i would suggest he hardly seems the mugging type.
I find it unconvincing that Hutchinson would only come forward after the inquest when he got wind of a sighting of a man [him] standing opposite the court at a relevant time , when the description of a stout man[no name] was mentioned.
The Hutchinson in question made it clear that he was apprehensive to get involved over the weekend, but was urged to do so by fellow boarders at his lodgings.
I Would suggest that he was a law abiding young man who witnessed a liason between Mjk[ who he was on speaking terms] and a man who although was not menacing alerted concern.
I cannot go along with the mugging feature , or stalker, or possible killer suggestions.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Same here Richard,
I cant see the problem.Many many people in Hutchinson"s horribly awkward position of having peered at the man and then followed the couple would have been scared out of their minds to go giving statements and descriptions.Scared of reprisal from the man in question,if he was the ripper- and scared of what the police would make of them hanging around at 2.30 am for three quarters of an hour apparently because they were worried about Mary!I have often thought he was simply hanging around in the hope of Mary letting him stay the night since his own Lodging house had closed.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 781
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
You can be dubious about the description that was released, but the description that is in the police files is the major one being discussed. It would be pretty incredible to suggest that the police withheld information from their own internal records.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Why would it be so 'Incredible' to not issue a one hundred per-cent description of Hutchinsons man?
The police of London were desperate to catch the killer of the whitechapel victims, so why would they issue a full description of the man that may have been responsible for Kellys murder.
In doing so they would have forced the perpretrator to go to ground or alter his appearence to avoid detection.
so it is entirely possible that the actual description released was done to give the killer[ which the police suspected was hutchinsons man] a false sence of security, for it would have been pointless otherwise.
All police forces once the art of detection became standard practise have released statements that do not reveal all, in cases of gross homicide they want to apprehend the culprit not alter his appearance which would be the case if a accurate description of 'Jack' was released.
Of course the fact that no other murders occured in this series, may have been the result of Hutchinsons description and if... that description was released accurately he may have simply stopped because he became paronoid.
If the police played it straight they simply by doing so lost their man.
Both scenerios are possible but in both cases jack remained unidentified.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
The problem in regard to Hutchinson's statement has always been the gold watch and chain, for me anyway.
I have studied the manifold cases from the period and there is no way that a person could walk into Dorset Street wearing a gold watch and chain and then walk out again with it upon his person.
This is an impossibility, unless that person was connected to Dorset Street in some manner or form.
Of course he could have been a copper.
Uncle Charles had a very nice gold watch. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 782
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Richard,
The description was an internal police document. We aren't talking about the description that was released to the public. The idea that the police would have put misleading information into reports that were only intended for other police and not the press or the public is simply absurd.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
AP,but isnt it possible that if it was the ripper
he may have been unable to think of anything but his obsessive urges that night-he may have considered that dressing himself as a well to do young man would have ensured catching his prey-rather than say dressing down?Jack was a violent killer himself,armed with a sharp knife and it seems that risk taking may have been part of it all.The idea of being mugged probably didnt bother him particularly with so much else at stake.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
The mere fact that Thomas carried his knife in a sheath concealed within his trousers says it all, Natalie.
Nothing needs to be added.
Especially a gold watch and chain.
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 277
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi again all,
Bob:
"The major problem to me with GH's statement is that apart from being factually impossible, it is totally illogical.
If GH was concerned with MJK's safety after seeing her being accosted by a stranger, which is what I believe you are implying, why then did he not come forward the very minute he heard MJK was dead?"
Yes, I was trying to say that I think Hutchinson was concerned for Mary, after seeing the stranger with her that he apparently thought seemed suspicious.
As for why Hutch didn't come forward immediately, well, that's anybody's guess.
Personally I think that Hutch was afraid to come forward at first because he thought he might be implicated in the murder. Not unreasonable to think, since he was basically admitting that, aside from the Ripper, he was probably the last person to see MJK alive. That was putting himself in a precarious position.
Besides that, I don't see Hutch taking 3 days to come forward as being an issue anyway.
Remember, other witnesses took just as long, if not longer. For example, it took Elizabeth Long 4 days to come forward after Annie Chapman's murder, and yet I haven't heard any criticism of Long for that.
Why not? What's the difference?
While we're on that topic, I've said this before, and I'll say it again on here:
I don't think Ripper witnesses, in general, get a fair go.
Some witnesses have been accused of lying or hiding information because they didn't say enough, and therefore are useless, while other witnesses have been accused of lying because they gave too much information.
Where's the in-between?
Let me give an example.
George Morris, who was working in the Kearley & Tonge buildings on the night of Cathy Eddowes' murder in Mitre Square, was very close to the scene, yet claimed he heard nor saw anything.
That has lead to him being accused of lying or not telling the full truth, because he supposedly didn't give enough information.
On the other hand, George Hutchinson, who provided a detailed description of what happened on the night of November 9, and a detailed description of the man he saw with Mary, has often been accused of lying because he gave too much information! Some have even made the gigantic leap to suggest he was Jack the Ripper!
As I asked before, where's the in-between?
Why are our witnesses often treated like liars, when there's no proof of that and when they are a vital part of the Ripper puzzle?
So while others may not, I choose to give the majority of Ripper witnesses a fair go, and most I do believe. Hutchinson is one of them.
AP Wolf:
"I have studied the manifold cases from the period and there is no way that a person could walk into Dorset Street wearing a gold watch and chain and then walk out again with it upon his person."
Well AP, as Natalie said, if the man Hutchinson saw was the Ripper, no matter how 'richly' he was dressed, he was carrying a sharp knife (or knives), and was intent on murder.
Put it this way, I wouldn't have liked to have been on the receiving end if I had tried to steal from him!
I don't think Hutchinson was interested in robbing, or trying to rob him anyway.
Just my opinion.
Plus, let's not forget Inspector Abberline interviewed Hutchinson at the time, and believed his story. It apparently didn't seem far-fetched to him!
Richard,
Great posts, and although we might not have agreed on things too many times before, this time I'm in complete agreement with you!
OK, I think that's enough said, for now anyway.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2781
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
AP
I imagine a cove could have walked into Dorset St wearing Uncle Charle's watch but very doubtful either he or the watch would have emerged!!!!!!!
OK Georgie sees Mary with 'stranger' is concerned enough to make copious mental and then on Monday written 'notes' but NOT concerned enough to go beetling down the court after Mary and have a recce!!! Hmmmmmmmmmm
Oh well
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3729
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Exactly, Suzi.
If he paid that much attention to details on the night in question, he apparently had some purpose of doing so, so why wait to deliver information about this person to the police? Clearly his alleged actions that night gives the impression of someone who has the intention to act. If he were that concerned for her safety, why let her take that person inside her room, where she would be defenseless and out of vision?
Of course he could have gotten cold feet when he found she was murdered, BUT at that time he didn't know he had been seen hanging around outside Miller's Court and he couldn't know if he was the last one who saw her -- IF he did see her and the man at all.
He didn't act until he thanks to the the inquest found out that someone had been loitering around outside the scene of the crime for a longer period of time, which he knew would be suspicious looking.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
"I have studied the manifold cases from the period and there is no way that a person could walk into Dorset Street..."
AP--If you don't quit combing those police reports you'll end up with 14 door locks and a revolver like your blessed Uncle. Of couse you've found 'manifold cases.' That's what you're looking for! Reading The Times police columns is hardly a random sampling. Since when is everyone earning less than $20,000 per anum a criminal?? The trouble with criminologist like you and Mr. Andersson is that you see a villain hiding under every bed. Any given night there were two hundred George Hutchinsons sleeping in the streets. What of it? There is nothing the least bit sinister in his actions. John Lardy stood in the cold fog for the same length of time. There was no television in those days.
Everyone groans about the history of the Whitechapel murders being written by males. An excellent point, to which I wholeheartedly agree. But what about it being written by middle-class paranoids who see a criminal in every poor person? If you step off the bus in the ghetto you dont' immediately get knifed.
The fact of the matter is that a red-light district like Spitalfields can't survive without outside money coming in. That's how the economics of these places work. Look at any moden case of prositute murders. It's someone coming in from an outside area. It's hardly a coincidence that Spitalfields was abutting the City of London and not in far-off East Hamm...it relied on the commerce from the West End! The same is true of every red-light district known to man. The history of prostitution in the Victorian era is a very difficult subject to unearth, but it can be done. I assure you in the great majority of cases it was a wealthy or middle-class male preying on working-class women or a working-class boys.
Nothing that is being said about George Hutchinson above couldn't be said about Israel Schwartz. Place that firmly in your clay pipe and smoke it.
He's alone in the street.
He sees an 'event' but doesn't come forward until news places an unidentified man in the same street.
No one else can corroborate what he has seen.
He identifies a 'suspect' that is of the opposite nationality of his own.
Schwartz's man looks like Hutchinson.
Hutchinson's man looks like Schwartz.
His testimony doesn't fit well with anyone else's.
The police believe him, but a close study of his testimony creates problems.
He afterwards disappears from the records.
In short, it's not enough.
FREE GEORGE HUTCHINSON.
R.P.
P.S. To Mrs.. Comer on the other thread, I would encourage her to read Dr. Hocking. Digestion doesn't stop after death. The easily digested fish was clinging to the intestines. Mary Kelly was murdered at 9:20 a.m +/- 7 1/2 mintutes.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 18, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3732
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
R.P.,
The difference is, that Schwartz didn't hang around the crime scene for over half an hour for odd reasons and also didn't deliver a description that appears to be a cut-out from the anti-semitic portraits of Jews in the illustrated papers, plus walking with a thick gold chain in the more questonable parts of East End.
Plus the fact that Hutchinson says he knew Mary Kelly but he is never mentioned by those who knew her.
Clearly Schwartz's story adds up in more ways than Hutchinson's does.
The fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson is certainly no proof of anything.
Besides, how do you know what Schwartz looked like, besides the general description of 'Jewish-looking'?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Ah, but Mr. Andersson, there's the rub. We merely have Hutchinson's own word for how long he lingered in the street. Surely the suspicion must be mitigated by the fact that he 'implicates' himself? I could respond by saying that Schwartz has flown from phantom men shouting and fighting in the street that no one else has either seen nor heard.
And as for our Mr. Schwartz, he was described as looking like one in the 'theatrical line.' A bit of a fancy-pants for a Spitalfield tailor. An older poster--long ago, I wonder if Mr. Radka can even remember that far back--did a study of these types from a contemporary source, and Hutchinson's man is a good description.
I pass no judgements, of course. I merely state (accurately) that a close examination of the facts shows that Schwartz's statement is neither more nor less credible than Hutchinson's.
I likewise wish you the best,
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 18, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 117
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
It is not so much the supposed sighting by Hutchinson alone that is odd,it is the fact that no one else saw anything.Or reported seeing anything.
There was an increased presence of police officers in the Whitechapel area.Commercial St was wide and reasonably lit,the supposed male was making no attempt to hide his movements or actions.He could have steered Kelly to the opposite side of the street, but chose to pass within a mere foot or so of Hutchinson with a light from the public house to reveal his features.He stands with Kelly in Dorset st for 3 minutes with Hutchinson a matter of only feet away and free to obseve him further.Hutchinson then stands for another 45 minutes in a position that any patrolling officer would notice his presence,but apparently none does.
Then Hutchinson walks the streets for the rest of that night,and again seems unobserved.
Aberline believed him,yes,but did Aberline ask the right questions?. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3733
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:33 am: |
|
It is quite clear that Abberline's so called witness interrogation of Hutchinson has as many holes as a Swiss cheese and that it leaves more questions and answers.
Hutchinson's statement is extraordinary in this context, since it is the only one where he have actual access to the person's written statement and the officer's (Abberline's) report.
Even an amateur can see that there are millions of questions that Abberline in his interview with Hutchinson leaves unexplored and therefore the result is confusing and not informative.
And I agree with Harry, that it is a singular fact, that apart from one other possible statement, no one else spotted either Hutchinson or his Jewish Christmas tree-looking suspect.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Glenn,
Depends on what 'report' Abberline wanted to be seen.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3734
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Monty,
What? Are YOU talking conspiracy?
In my experience, Abberline's report and interview technique is quite respresentative for the approach used in the 19th and very early 20the century. I have seen the same thing here at home in Swedish police files, and it is always baffling how they lack many important questions that really could have straightened out a large number of question marks if they only would have been put forward.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Glenn,
No, I am talking English....you conspiracy.
Seriously, I am not hinting at conspiracy. I want to make that very clear.
Abberlines report is obviously built up from the questioning of Hutchinson, and amended in Hutchinsons presence. There is no breakdown of the exact questions put forward like you would have with todays IUC tape recorded interviews. And if no transcript of the actual questions put to Hutchinson exists then we only have the report to work off. Correct?
I suspect that Abberline would have questioned him, made notes, written the report from the notes and read it back to Hutchinson with amendments made according. The report is obviously Hutchinsons take on a series of events drawn out by Abberlines (or whoever) questioning, but that is all the report is. Im sure that Abberline (or, again, whoever) would have questioned Hutchinson with regards to other issues and it seems that either these questions were not noted down or they are missing from the file.
Basically what I am saying is that by reading the report of Hutchinsons take of events that night and judging that one particular document, does not mean that other salient enquiries were not made.
I just feel we do not have the whole picture with regards to the Polices questioning of Hutchinson.
Cheers
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 281
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Psst...Hey Glenn....do you like my new signature, hmm? ;)
Anyway, unfortunately I've left it a bit late tonight, but I'll be back to reply to this thread in full tomorrow.
Cheers,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3735
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
No, I have to disagree. Clearly, even in a summarized report, issues that would raise question marks or 'blank' fields of information would have been discussed if they were asked and answered during the interview. Even in a summarized report I feel important information and questions would be contained therein. Besides, this was an important case, and Hutchinson was an important witness.
As I said, I have seen a large number of witness interviews from the 19th and early 20th centuries and they all look like this -- INCLUDING existing notes taken during the interview, with specific questions. They all fail to answer a number of questions, and they lack more information than they deliver. On almost every line, you as a reader constantly asks yourself 'why', 'when', 'how' and 'who'. Those are all questions that should have been answered in the internal documents. Abberline's interogation with Hutchinson is cearly a representative example of this.
My point with this is, that Abberline, seen in the context of the later developments of interview techniques, did no worse job than anyone else in those days, but he also didn't do better.
Fact remains, the result of the interview with Hutchinson is a disaster and its inflation of Swiss holes leaves more questions than answers.
But I believe what we see is an example of how this was conducted at the time, and it only shows that Abberline wasn't the exceptional mastermind some makes him out to be.
Clearly Abberline failed to subject Hutchinson to a large number of very vital questions and counter-questions, and therefore his conclusions can be disputed. I can't see why many of those extremely important issues should be left out in a summarized report.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3739
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Adam,
I have only one thing to say... 'oh boy'...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1782
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Glenn,
Now I have to disagree.
How do you know that Abberline failed to vitally question Hutchinson? Wheres the proof?
Are you basing this upon one report?
How do you know this was the only report?
And finally, what questions do you feel Abberline failed to address?
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3743
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Monty,
'How do you know that Abberline failed to vitally question Hutchinson? Wheres the proof?'
It is all there in black and white -- or rather what is interesting is what is NOT there. In a document where he comments and summarized the witness Hutchinson, the anomalies it contain should be accounted for. What would be the point of saving these for another document?
'And finally, what questions do you feel Abberline failed to address?'
Just some quick examples of questions Hutchinson should have been subjected to, after he had given his statement:
Hutchinson: 'Aout 2:00 a.m. on the 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street and just before got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly...'
-- How was she dressed?
-- How well did you know her? When was the last time you saw her or spoke to her prior to this incident?
-- Did you know anyone in relation to her or any of her friends?
Hutchinson: 'They both came past me and the man hung his head down with the hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them.'
-- This night was overcast. How close to the couple were you when you were able to see the details of the man, and during the incident when he looked at you stern, since you were capable of picking up so many details? Can you give us some estimations?
-- What was the woman Kelly's reaction to your actions? Did she say anything? After all, she was a prostitute and you were interferring while she was being picked up by what looks like a wealthy client? Weren't you concerned about that Kelly would feel you intruded? Surely she must have reacted to it, if you were that close to the couple?
-- Did anyone else pass you or the couple during this, or did you have the streets for yourself? Did they speak to anyone else?
Hutchinson: 'I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out.'
-- This was a cold night. What exactly was the purpose of waiting for forty-five minutes? Why in particular raised this man your suspicions in order for you to take these actions?
-- Did you see anyone else while you were waiting outside the court? Did you notice anyone passing you? [for the sake of Sarah Lewis]
And of course the obvious question:
--Why did you wait so long to come forward? Surely you had a reason for following the couple and trying to identify the man.
Do you want me to go on?
And... besides the lack of questions regarding the above, there are also several anomalies in Hutchinson's statements, like the pub, first being mentioned as Ten Bells (which is erased and the replaced by the Queen's Head, probably because it didn't add up otherwise because of the description of the locations).
Most puzzling of all, why would the man (especially if he was the murderer) continue to follow Mary kelly into the court where she lived, if he had noticed Hutchinson following them and also knew Hutchinson had managed to get a good look at him?
None of these thoughts are at all addressed in Abberline's report; what the report do indicate is that they in sheer panic bought Hutchinson's statement and Jewish suspect and decided to concentrate on the latter instead of checking out Hutchinson.
And what about the info on Hutchinson himself? All we find is Abberline's general opinion of his character.
Neither are there any significant notes in the left margin of the report -- something that I at least have seen several times in such reports in other cases.
Most of these points must indicate that Hutchinson's statement was a construction and that the police in a state of desperation grasped the bait and blew it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Monty,
'How do you know that Abberline failed to vitally question Hutchinson? Wheres the proof?'
It is all there in black and white -- or rather what is interesting is what is NOT there. In a document where he comments and summarized the witness Hutchinson, the anomalies it contain should be accounted for. What would be the point of saving these for another document?
True, but I stress again that you are working from only one known document. Im just pointing (not ponting Adam) out that caution should be used when stating that vital questions were not asked. You do not know this.
Your questions. After a quick scan, so forgive me if I am incorrect (I will come back to this excellent post when I have more time tomorrow) I can tell that some of the questions you ask were asked and answered by reading the report. Ill explain more tomorrow.
I am not trying to provoke but more interested in a view which, as far as I remember, was brought up some time ago. Also (again if memory serves me right, apologies if not), judging from the report in my pro pack, Abberline did not write the report out. I believe he counter signed it but Helson completed the report. Again, apologies if Im incorrect. I am working at the moment and do not have my sources to hand.
The Queens Head amendment is a puzzler, one of a few problems I have with this statement.
At the end of the day, I agree with your opinion Glenn about the actual report. It seems suspect and contrived. I do disagree with the idea that George wasnt questioned properly. He may not have been but I fail to see evidence which supports this idea totally.
Get back to you tomorrow.
Have a good un,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3744
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Monty,
The report made by Abberline was sent to Superintendent Arnold and it enclosed the Hutchinson statement. They were in other words submitted together.
I can't see why there should be any additional reports connected to the time of the interrogation (it is quite possible that some comments was made later, but we are dealing with what was submitted together with the witness statement here). Abberline's report comments slightly with a few additions to what is said by Hutchinson, but most of the other question marks remain. If other questions were asked, I believe they would have been discussed in this report.
"Also (again if memory serves me right, apologies if not), judging from the report in my pro pack, Abberline did not write the report out. I believe he counter signed it but Helson completed the report."
I don't know about that; as far as I can read, it is written in Abberline's own hand and counter-signed by Arnold.
The Hutchinson statement, on the other hand, was taken down by Sergeant Badham and counter-signed by Inspector Ellison -- and signed also by Hutchinson.
"After a quick scan, so forgive me if I am incorrect (I will come back to this excellent post when I have more time tomorrow) I can tell that some of the questions you ask were asked and answered by reading the report."
Actually, you are quite right. Two of the points I put forward above are answered, but they are not elaborated further. One gets the feeling that Abberline totally buys everything Hutchinson says.
The report adds further information on two points to the Hutchinson statement, but they don't tell us much; the question marks remain:
a) it adds that Hutchinson have known Mary Kelly 'for three years' but there are no elaboration on this; no comments on what she looked like (in order to check if he really knew her), or if he knew her friends (which he should have if he'd known her for three years, and fact remins that he is not mentioned by any other person in her circuits);
b) it adds that the man raised Huthinson's suspicions because he was surprised to see such a well-dressed man in her company.
That's about it.
No confirmation if he could describe Mary Kelly and her clothing that night -- Hutchinson rambles a very detailed description of the suspect, but he doesn't mention Mary kelly's apparence with one word.
No other details are confirmed, regarding if any other person saw him or the couple, no comments about how Mary kelly reacted to Hutchinson's involvement etc.
I get the impression that they practically bought everything Hutchinson said straight off and that they were interested in his so called suspect but forgot about Hutchinson himself.
It shall be noted, however, that Abberline says that he 'interrogated' him, not 'interviewed' him, which could indicate that he was treated as a suspect to begin with. To me it is obvious, although not proven, that Hutchinson managed to evade their suspicions when he delivered them a detailed description of a suspect.
From the material we have, the 'interrogation' of Hutchinson must be considered a questional but also representative piece of police work for its time -- as I said, I have seen several documents from the same time period of similar 'quality' and displaying the same lack of interviewing technique. This is typical 19th century interrogation technique and it can be visible in loads of other reports commenting witness statements.
As far as Hutchinson is concerned, I am of the certain opinion they were conned by him and once again missed the boat.
I don't think he was the killer, though.
A good day to you as well, Monty.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 786
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn, Monty-
Incidentally, Stewart P. Evans weighs in on this very topic in the July issue of Ripper Notes. As a former police officer and a well-respected author of several books on the topic, you'd both be very interested in what he has to say, I'm sure.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3745
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Yes, I know, Dan.
I am really looking forward to that one. It is always interesting to hear what good old Stewart has to say.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
RJ
Yes, you are right, spending endless hours reading through police reports in The Times can hypnotise one into believing that everyman Jack is a criminal lunatic… my apologies for that.
There is a name for the condition but I can’t remember it, where one studies so many words that the essential meaning of those words become lost and one falls into the trance of believing that there is a connecting pattern between everything.
However in the case of Hutchinson the point I was attempting to make - and obviously failed - was that I was not necessarily in dispute with his testimony, but rather attempting to point out that the individual he described most likely was known to him and of local Whitechapel origin, hence the gold watch and chain.
For a local bigwig or gangster would have no hesitation in marching down Dorset Street displaying his gold accoutrements and other assorted finery as his reputation amongst the local roughs and toughs would have protected him.
However I cannot go along with you that a ’gentleman’ from the City could wander at large in Dorset Street at night with a gold watch and chain in complete security because the local roughs realised that his spending power was essential to their ultimate survival.
One imagines the scene as a bunch of drunken Irishmen eye up the bejewelled gentleman.
‘Paddy, Jeez! Look at the gold watch on him there! I’m going to bang him around his thick head and take that there watch for meself!’
Paddy puts a restraining arm on young Shamus:
‘Now den, young Shamus, don’t you realise the good gentleman is merely going into the lodging house across the road where he will bed a fine whore for four pence, thereby making a valuable economic contribution to our survival as a race of drunken and besotted East Enders, so you’ll leave the gentleman’s watch alone, young Shamus.’
Young Shamus nods his head in agreement with wise old Paddy.
Exactly what planet was it that you were living on at the time of that post, RJ?
My meaning was that I thought Hutchinson’s reluctance and confusion might stem from the fact that he knew the man; and I stand by my statement that if a Gent went into Dorset Street at night with a gold watch and chain, then that gold watch and chain would have formed his economic contribution and he would have had a very sore head. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2788
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Dear AP!
Thanks for making me laugh!!! (as ever!)....am taking a break from the 'Aldgate Bombings' ruck!!!!
I THINK I get what you're saying here and agree.... Mr Gold watch was a local 'Herbert' who was in the habit of affecting the old 'watch 'n chain' and therefore although George knew him maybe by sight didn't have a name..Just someone who made the odd(!!) appearance!
NOW if a NEW 'Cove' made an appearance.......different story!!!......and witness statement too I'll warrant!!
Well Paddy Oi Agree anyway!!
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
No AP it was a top hatted chap with a knife who didnt give a toss for his or anyone else,intent on the matter in hand and more than confident he could knock anyone out who stood in his way- this chap didnt know the meaning of fear! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4702
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Something I've been meaning to post, and which seems to go against Bob's view of spats as exclusively morning wear :
Over a late, unhurried lunch at one of Manhattan's most exclusive restaurants, the Russian count who aspired to be an American commoner, who behaved like a rogue and lived like a royal, savors a meal fit for a king.
And partakes liberally of conversation about his extraordinary life.
He was born in April 1913, in Paris. It is said that he entered the world in a splendid apartment on the Rue de General Lambert, upon a gold and white bed draped with pink silk. The birth was attended by a physician who arrived by carriage, after midnight, clothed in top hat, white gloves and spats.
(From http://www.jsonline.com/news/sunday/lifestyle/0518oleg.html)
Don't ask me - my idea of fashion is to wash my anorak.
Robert
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3751
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Well, I would imagine it as not recommendable walking at night in Mr Astrakhan's outfit in streets like Dorset Street, which, along with Thrawl Street, was one of the worst streets in the area.
I can't decide if such a conduct would imply suicide or pure stupidity.
As for R.P.:s claim that it was mostly wealthy East End guys who used the ragged, poor prostitutes, I would assume that some occasional blokes would have found it fascinating and exotic to do so while slumming and for the thrill of it. But fact remains that the clients of these women often came from their own poor class or the lower middle/working class. Most wealthy men used the rather safe and socially accepted and better brothels on their own turf, not only because the women probably looked and smelled better, but also because the risk of getting veneral diseases were not as high.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Mr. Andersson---I presume you meant 'West End' guys. All classes of men used prostitutes. My broader point is that the characterization of the East End as some "no man's land" were any toff would be immediately rolled and even angels feared to tread is a wild exaggeration. I do hope that some people here have read Dr. Fishman. It was a cosmopolitan area, and while horrible poverty existed, there was traffic from the West End (and especially by November, 1888); even in Booth's study, 60% of the inhabitants were above the poverty level. The idea that Mr. Goldchain simply couldn't have existed is bosh! There were any number of his types there, and randy old men who have more money than brains go to low prostitutes every night of the week. Over here in the United States, one of our most prominent television evangelists was particularly fond of them.
AP-- Surely you've noticed that the world is full of fools? The last time I checked, men who frequent prositutes engage in risky behavior. The argument seems to be that no man in his right man walks into Dorset Street with a gold watch. But the world is full of men not in their right minds. I used to know an old, foolish American gentleman who went into a beer cellar in Soho in the 1970s and ordered an 8 oz. Pepsi. The waitress came back with it and charged him twenty-five pounds. Two burly bouncers stood by his table until he paid up. No doubt the locals thought the tale was mythical, but I knew the man, and obviously he wasn't the first. Of course he shouldn't have been there, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. And no, he didn't file a police report. They seldom do.
Which brings me to point number two. And as long as Mr. Goldchain wasn't identified, there's really no saying whether he was rolled or not. One doesn't admit to being in Dorset Street at 3 a.m. if there's a Mrs. Goldchain at home. Terrible, yes. I've yet to understand why Hutchinson's tale is so incredible. Schwartz's seems more so to me. Particularly as the kitchen door was cracked and Mrs. Diemschultz was in there mixing coffee. Funny how no one heard the 3 little screams, and Long Liz was still placidly gripping those breath mints. I'd say Schwartz is more likely to be a crank or a publicity hound than our Georgie.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 19, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
And don't underestimate the lure of anonymity. Wealthy men go to low rent districts because they don't want to be seen. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3754
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Mr Palmer -- Yes, I meant 'West End' guys. Sorry about that typo (I probably unintentionally tried to avoid any reminiscence to Pet Shop Boys 'West End Girls'...). Correctly perceived.
Well, as you may have noted, I didn't totally rule out the possibility of West End men in the area, although I would believe that mostly consisted of slumming in those particular streets discussed here. I don't doubt for a minute that Whitechapel as a whole was cosmopolitic, and some streets were very respectable, as I understand (especially the large ones like Whitechapel High Street), but we are talking about the more dark and sinister ones like Dorset and Thrawl Street here, where even the police, by the their own accounts, felt unsafe and uncomfortable. East End didn't have the same character everywhere. Have you actually seen the photographs from the most appaling alleys and courts? We are not talking about walking around with an Astrakhan coat and golden chain ANYWHERE in Whitechapel or Spitalfields, but in the worst areas. There is a difference, and according to Booth's map, some streets were worse than others, and Dorset Street was one of them. I don't know how you would describe it, but hardly 'cosmopolitan'.
It is a well known fact -- also from studies of prostitutes in other countries during this time period in similar poor city environments -- that the main group of clients of these ragges and poor women were men from the lower classes.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Next I'll be hearing that it was Spitalfields bootblack who wrote My Secret Life... |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
I think Mr Palmer is focusing on one point of Hutchinsons statement, the watch, refuting it and implying that makes GH's statement believable. It doesn't. To convince most people GH is telling the truth the whole of GH's statement must be examined and pass the logical and likely test.
For example if we take the point about the watch. GH stated that the man wore a watch complete with chain and a red seal. The watch was in the waistcoat pocket of the man with the chain and seal stretching across his stomach in the normal manner. (how I wear mine for example) For GH to have seen this it means that the man wore the watch on open display which leaves two points to ponder when considering the watch.
1. Would anyone be so daft as to display his wealth in such an obvious way in such a dangerous area. Mr Palmer says possibly.
2. This would mean that the mans heavy overcoat was not only open but held back from the centreline position. It would also mean that the mans jacket was worn likewise. When I wear a watch in this manner together with an overcoat when I stand up the overcoat and jacket naturally close and hide the watch from view. To expose the watch to clear view I have to physically hold both the jacket and overcoat open. Why would anyone walk down a street at two o clock in the morning, in the freezing rain and cold deliberately holding my nice warm overcoat and jacket open?
You see you have to look at the statement as a whole. You can't just pick one small area of it and focus on that. And this is before all the other parts of the statement that are entirely impossible.
Bob |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
But Bob ,
If this man was the ripper, and I for one think he might have been,then I think he wouldn"t have given a damn for his safety, and if he thought his attire would help to inveigle Mary Kelly [or another prostitute on Commercial Street that night] back into a "room" where he could murder and mutilate to his hearts content then he would have been prepared to dress himself to the nines
to attract the services of such as Mary Kelly.If then it took a top hat,displayed watch with a gold seal,astrakhan fur collar etc to seduce her and obtain an all-encompassing bag of perverse thrills to hell with fear----as the saying goes "in life there are only those who do and those who dont dare!"
.....and boy did the ripper dare!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Glenn,
RJ"s point about old roues from the wealthier classes is very true.We had here a case that hit the headlines not that long ago where our millionaire Jeffrey Archer -he of the fragrant wife and beautiful mansion-was involved in allegedly picking up an ordinary street walker -
Hugh Grant similarly caught in a very rough street
and we have recorded information about numerous well heeled individuals who contracted syphallis in those times one assumes in pursuit
of their enjoyment of a bit of rough!!!! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
Glenn,
I think we, or rather I am getting confused between Abberlines report and Hutchinsons statement. My apologies. Just to clarify...and please correct me if Im wrong.
We have two documents. As you say, one is Abberlines report. Having not seen a reproduction of this document I cannot say for sure if Abberline wrote this but logic says that he must have. This report clearly states that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson. One can only hope that he interrogated him correctly. Some issues were addressed in this report that were not mentioned in Hutchinsons statement....speaking of which..
...the other document is Hutchinsons statement. Written down by Badham (as you stated and not Helson as I incorrectly stated) signed by Hutchinson on each page (as per regulation) and countersigned by Ellison, Abberline and Arnold (upon receipt). The amendment with regards to the Ten Bells/Queens Head is made, according to my own judgement, by Abberline himself as it appears to be in his own handwriting. Clarification over.
Having re read the relevant docs I can only say that Im in total agreement with you Glenn. My view has altered.
As admitting to seeing Kelly and the last sighting before she died (going with the medical reports time of death) the Im not surprised Hutchinson was treated as a suspect.
All in all I agree. It would indeed seem that the handling of Hutchinson is questionable. However, its easy to say this today with hindsight and with the knowledge the Police have with regards to such matters.
The crux regarding Hutchinson is your line "I get the impression that they practically bought everything Hutchinson said straight off and that they were interested in his so called suspect but forgot about Hutchinson himself."
That for me sums up Hutchinson and the Polices reaction to him.
Cheers,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 118
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Glen,
I am in complete agreement with you,for once.
To take the event one stage further.No matter when Kelly was killed,be it night or early morning,4AM,or 9AM,Hutchinson has no alibi,his whereabouts unconfirmed.By introducing a suspect at 2AM,he would be within the timelimits stated by a doctors report as to when Kelly died.
If you believe 9AM as the time of death,it is difficult to consider a person such as Hutchinson describes,whose dress apearance,in full daylight would not go unoticed. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3762
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Monty,
You make me so happy. You agreeing with me confirms in a way that I am on the right track with my thoughts here, because you are one of those I trust the most and hesitate the most to argue against.
"However, its easy to say this today with hindsight and with the knowledge the Police have with regards to such matters."
Absolutely, which is why I said that I have seen it several times before in other cases in the same time period, and that Abberline & Co didn't do no worse no better than their contemporaries, although it seems they missed out quite a lot.
As for the report -- which is clearly written by Abberline himself in his own hand -- there exists a facsimile of the original in the document box Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders, put together by Evans and Skinner.
Natalie,
Oh, but I don't rule that possibility out completely. I am not much of an expert on East End as such; all I am saying is, looking at pictures of streets like Dorset Street a man like Mr Astrakhan seems very unlikely if he wanted to get out of there in one piece. Because he do certainly stand out.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if West End men 'courted' these very poor women of the streets just for curiousity (it could hardly be for anything else) and I know that happened, but I do not believe they were their usual clientel.
I am mostly basing this on the conditions of similar prostitutes in other cities in Europe and in Scandinavia in similar extremely poor areas. Research there shows that that their clients were people from the working class. And I don't think East End differed that much from other similar areas in other cities. Visiting brothels (where the women looked better and where the guys didn't risk to get mugged) was a socially accepted thing to do for a man from the middle or better classes and absolutely nothing they had to hide or do undercover (unless they were married, I assume). Which illustrates a bit the strange social and sexual conventions at the time; it was not socially accepted to be a prostitute or for a woman to sleep around, but it was OK for a man to visit brothels.
But still, I am not prepared to stress this point too hard. I believe there exists people who have made more thorough reserch on these particular issues in London esepcially and I am not one of them.
This is not the really the most crucial point regarding Hutchinson's statement. My main objection to the man's appearence is that he looks like a Jewish cut-out cliché from the illustrated papers and therefore more or less constructed.
Harry,
Exactly. I agree.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Glenn,
You make me so happy. You agreeing with me confirms in a way that I am on the right track with my thoughts here, because you are one of those I trust the most and hesitate the most to argue against.
The same goes for me about your thoughts.
I have the Pro Pack. Didnt see the report but did see Hutchinsons statement.
I shall look tonight more thoroughly as opposed to last night when I was very busy and just glanced through.
Cheers,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3763
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
If you have that box, the report by Inspector Abberline on 'the Kelly murder and inquest and the witness George Hutchinson' is labeled number 14; Hutchinson's statement (which was submitted as an enclosed attachment to this report) has number 13.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
