|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3793
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 3:37 pm: | 
|
Hi Dave,
I am not judging them; I am only trying to acknowledge that we must take these circumstances into account, and therefore we should not be surprised if they didn't pull of a witness interrogation by the standards we're used to, and subsequentely Abberline's belief in Hutchinson, Barnett etc. can't be totally relied on without being questioning at least a bit. Because these procedures did work differently than they do today.
Which could be the explanation to why Abberline & Co seems to have bought Hutchinson's story.
Because in all honesty -- they did.My point is that I am not judging Abberline for not knowing what we know today, but I am only stating that his opinions tend to be over-empathized when we consider the lack of our modern techniques of the 1888 police.
When people are relying on Abberlie's so called gifts they forget exactly the fact that this was 1888, and that a lot has happened in police procedures since then. Therefore the opinion of Abberline or any other contemporary officer can't be trusted totally in that regard.
And this becomes all too clear when one studies the anomalies in Hutchinson's statement, since they obviously bought what he said.
I feel, the police's pressing situation is a more likely explanation to why they decided to believe Hutchinson, and the fact that Hutchinson delivered a suspect to them in their time of need. I am afraid that is what might have appealed the police and nothing else.
I think it is quite possible that there was something in Hutchinson's story that Abberline found appealing and that is exactly the problem.
What is my concern is that several of the anomalies seems to have been over-looked and the right questions weren't asked. Hucthinson's statement speaks for itself, as far as I am concerned.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Okay, but I'm not sure that police procedure has progressed that much. I might be wrong (since I'm not a cop), but I think a lot of it still comes down to a detective's ability to size up a witness.
Sometimes I think some of the glaring detail in Hutchinson's statement comes from repeated interrogation, just repeated probing that produced what seems to us as incredible detail (and so suspicious). If you look at the statement transcribed in Sourcebook, you will see that no less than four names are submitted beneath Hutchinson's--Badham, Ellisdon, Arnold, and Abberline. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those signatures indicate the people present for the statement, right? Four guys interrogating Hutchinson. I suppose Badham's just writing it all down, but even three guys squeezing a cow's udders will produce a lot of milk, right?
I'm just guessing, of course.
Cheers, Glenn--you are my favorite Swede, you know.
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
The British invented the legal system over many centuries and knew how to interview people without asking leading questions. So, I'm sorry, but modern interviewing techiniques be damned.
Dave--Don't you have to throw the Hutchinson people at least one scrap? Personally, I fail to see his statement being extraordinarily detailed or illogical per se---taken as it is; but isn't it a little odd that the details are still vivid in his mind several days later? I'm trying to revisualize that nice young lady I saw walking down the sidewalk yesterday afternoon, and I can't do it.
Harry makes an interesting observation.
"You forget the important point. There was increased police patrolling and surveilance activity at the time of Kelly's death. I would doubt that 45 minutes would pass without a patrol along Dorset street,or that no surveilance would be on a principal thoroughfare such as Commercial St.Or that such a charade that was supposedly played out there would go unnoticed. "
Setting aside for the moment the interesting question as to whether or why a constable wasn't in Dorset Street for forty-five minutes, I think Hutchinson does answer this in The Times on Nov. 14th:
"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else."
1. Surely, no one can argue that Abberline didn't read the The Times? The lodging-house keeper would have been interviewed for confirmation.
2. Doesn't this leave open the possibility that Hutchinson wasn't Sarah Lewis's man? For if Hutchinson saw no one else, where is the young couple that Lewis saw?
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. " --Sarah Lewis, inquest testimony, Daily Telegraph Nov. 14.
The whole argument for Hutchinson coming forward, as I understand it, is that he is reacting to Sarah Lewis's statement at the inquest, but surely if this was the case, he would have made damn sure to include the couple?
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
G'day,
Reading the 'A to Z' tells me that Abberline was Inspector of H division (Whitechapel) for 14 years from 1873-1887. He knew Whitechapel, (that was his 'gift'), so that's why he was made 'Metropolitan Police Inspector in charge of detectives on the ground' for the duration of the Whitechapel murders. The'A to Z' says that he is often wrongly described as the officer in charge of the case.
I believe he was placed in charge of patrolling detectives because he was considered to have a good knowledge of Whitechapel, and the haunts of criminals in Whitechapel. He was likely to have had a knowledge of the 'Petticoat Lane Fencers', or at least the fact that some men were 'booty scouts'.
DAVID: You noticed that there were four names underneath Hutchinson's statement, therefore you assume that four officers interrogated him. I've always thought that the interrogation was performed after the statement was taken. How can anyone be interrogated before or while they give their statement?
LEANNE
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi R.J.
I would think it odd if he came off the street and in his first version began recounting some of the details in his description of the man with MJK. What I imagine is that Hutchinson comes in and, like you and your young lady, maybe he actually doesn't remember a lot of detail in his initial statement. Instead, he comes out with a vague "I knew the murdered girl and I may have seen her with Jack the Ripper." Repeated questioning would bring out all these other details--that's the whole point of questioning witnesses, to retrieve whatever detail is possible. I'm sure if a couple of inspectors started questioning you about your young lady, they'd get some further details, some quite specific stuff that you might be surprised you remembered.
Obviously though, I am just imagining a scenario, and don't really know that it happened this way. But the idea is that the statement we see is the labor of several people and not the words of Hutchinson fresh off the street.
I wonder how helpful the lodging-house deputy would really have been. Thinking about how busy your average lodging house must have been. Witness Frederick Wilkinson's details about comings and goings at Cooney's.
Re: Sarah Lewis--that's a good point; I would never see that's not a possibility. But I think Hutchinson must have had something compelling him to come forward. My view is that he was out there soliciting and that he realized Sarah Lewis saw him.
Leeanne, seems to me that you'd interrogate a witness in order to produce the most detailed statement you could get, right? Therefore the questioning would come before the signed statement. There'd have been several statements I think, the signed statement being the final version. At least that's how they do it on TV 
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on July 22, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3794
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
RJ,
Well, 1888 was 1888 and the interrogations were, in my experience, not conducted in such a formalised way as they are today, and they weren't always tip top. No question about it. I've seen examples of it too many times. I could be wrong about how things worked in London. But from what I've seen in the case of Hutchinson, I can't say it was handled that good.
There are respectable number of strange things in Hutchinson's statement that doesn't add up with logic. I have mentioned them earlier (and listed them in a post above) and other have before me. His story just simply don't work, and my impression from reading it is that it is totally constructed. But again, just my interpretation, but I believe it is there quite clear in black and white. His statement is a load of garbage as far as I am concerned.
As for Hutchinson not being Lewis' man, that is absolutely a possibility that can't be disregarded.
Sarah Lewis described the man as stout, and although we don't know what Hutchinson looked like he is supposed to have had a 'military apparence' (whatever that means).
In any case, I guess this is beyond our knowledge, but it must be accepted as a possibility that the man she saw might not have been Hutchinson.
Of course, Hutchinson himself couldn't know that.
Cheers, Dave!
Well, I am not sure if all of them interrogated him. I guess some could have just counter signed it as a witness or something. I think it would have been more chaotic than usual with three or four officers speaking in each other's mouths during an interview.
In any case, one never knows, but I am not sure if it holds up as an explanation. With so many inconsistencies in the statement one would think the chances for them being picked up by those who interrogated would be better. But just my views.
Leanne,
True, as far as I know, the witness should give his statement first in his own words before he's interrogated, in order to avoid leading questions and interrupting of the thoughts of the interrogated person. But from what I've seen on occasion, they weren't always cautious with this at the time -- again, the circumstances regarding this interview we know very little about.
As for Abberline, yes I believe his local knowledge and contacts within the local environment might have been of the big reasons for him being assigned the case, although I believe it wasn't the only one; I think he also was considered experienced. But yes, that sounds fair.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
RJ,
The British were probably the leading world experts in "interviewing techniques" from what our history books tell us.Especially from Tudor times when the country was torn by religious warfare.
Elizabeth 1st"s secretary of state Frances Walsingham was probably England"s first secret policeman and his genius appears to have found its way into all subsequent thinking on the matter.
Natalie
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3796
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Dave,
"But I think Hutchinson must have had something compelling him to come forward. My view is that he was out there soliciting and that he realized Sarah Lewis saw him."
True. I absolutely concur with this. Quite possible.
"Therefore the questioning would come before the signed statement."
Yes, the written and signed statement.
But you should, as far as I know, always let the witness tell his own story first without being interupted by too many questions (unless we're dealing with a suspect reluctant to participate). Then you can interrogate with more specific question. I don't think this is always conducted according to recommendations, though, and of course it may vary depending on the nature of the witness. Some are -- as we know -- not at all inclined to talk and then you probably have to interrogate with questions right from the start.
Today, the witness usually write down his own statement anyway.
Of course, this is only what I have picked up from friends in the police and from police hand books. I would think Monty may be able to tell us more about this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Exactly, first the witness comes in and tells his story, then the police start asking specific questions, producing a more detailed version. The final version is the signed statement, the fullest description of events. They wouldn't bother having him sign an earlier version and then asking for more details. What would be the point of that?
Cheers,
Dave
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3798
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
No that's true, of course. That wouldn't make any sense.
It is interesting to note, though, that they felt it necessary to make an alteration in it afterwards, in order for the locations to add up.
I don't think the anomalies in Hutchinson's statement is a result of repetitious questioning, though. As I see it many of the Swiss holes in the story would have been cleared up if that was the case. But that's just me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 121
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Glen,
The term 'Military looking',or of 'Military appearance',is rarely if ever used these days.However,up to and including the second world war,it was not an uncommon expression.If you picture a soldier on parade,clean shaven,clothes clean and pressed and of good quality,erect posture,direct gaze and direct of speech,you get an idea of what is meant.Quite different from the out of work labourer that Hutchinson declared himsef to be.
Two other points.Sarah Lewis could only be witness to seeing a person at Crossingham's.She can not corroborate the presence of Kelly and a stranger,as Hutchinson describes.
Point two.Even if the cry of 'Oh murder' was common on the streets of Whitechapel,was it common at around four o'clock of a weekday morning. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
G'day,
When Hutchinson was speaking to the press he said that he thought he may have seen his man in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, (11th of November). He went to the police station and made his statement the following day, (Monday November 12), yet said nothing of the sighting in Petticoat Lane.
I believe that he didn't want to admit that he was in Petticoat Lane, or suggest that his suspect was a Petticoat Lane frequenter too. Perhaps the stern look was one of a two-way recognition.
Hutchinson only described the red stone seal in the man's watch chain and the bit about the 'American cloth' bag in his press interview. It's as though they only existed in his mind. And notice how he described his suspect as only having a Jewish APPEARANCE!!!!
LEANNE |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3799
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Harry,
Thanks for the info about 'military appearence'.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 699
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
“Sometimes I think some of the glaring detail in Hutchinson's statement comes from repeated interrogation, just repeated probing that produced what seems to us as incredible detail (and so suspicious).”
I doubt if this is true, because otherwise I would have expected to see more similarly detailed witness descriptions, not just one. I would have at least expected more details in some of the other descriptions. But there’s a very large gap between all the others’ and Hutchinson’s description.
Furthermore, GH said to have ‘stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House’. If this was a lamp attached to the wall of the pub, it must mean that GH stood against or close to the public house while the couple was walking by. However, MJK’s client had his right arm around her shoulder, which means that MJK was positioned between GH and her client when GH stooped down to look the man in the face. In addition to the problems such interference would probably cause by itself (as suggested by Glenn), it would practically make it rather hard for GH to actually get a good look at the man’s face.
If, however, he meant that he was standing against a lamppost close to the pub, which would probably be at the street side, this would present another problem. As can be seen in the (ca.) 1908 photo of Commercial Street and the Ringers pub the actual lamps in the lampposts were very high above the ground (5, 6, 7 meters/16, 20, 23 ft?), so one might wonder how much light actually reached down so that it would be helpful to GH.
But even if it did reach down far enough, the light would have undoubtedly cast a shadow over the client’s face, making it hard to distinguish many details there. Certainly if this man’s hat was somewhat drawn over his eyes, GH would not have been able to see the eyebrows at all, let alone see if they were bushy. Something that I’ve always found strange is that GH, while he was able to give a very detailed picture of what the man was wearing, he couldn’t (or he at least didn’t and Abberline & Co didn’t seem to have asked for it) tell anything about the man’s more distinguishable facial features, except for the less important ones, the general foreigner’s look. This doesn’t seem to fit with your comment above.
“If you look at the statement transcribed in Sourcebook, you will see that no less than four names are submitted beneath Hutchinson's--Badham, Ellisdon, Arnold, and Abberline.”
Like Glenn I’m not sure if they all interrogated him. I’ve always thought that Arnold only signed it as a sign of ‘I’ve read it and have no questions about it’ or something along those lines. For instance, Arnold also signed Abberline’s report on MJK’s inquest, containing his comments on GH.
Just my two cents of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 700
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
"For if Hutchinson saw no one else, where is the young couple that Lewis saw?"
I don't think it's necessarily hard to explain that. According to Lewis he was occupied with looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. According to his own account, Hutchinson was doing just that. So, he might just not have noticed the couple. What is stranger is that Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3800
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
I hope you're feeling better now.
You are quite right in your thoughts, as far as I am concerned, and I agree.
One of the most crucial problems about that part of his testimony, however, is that -- if Hutchinson really had known Mary Kelly for three years -- where is the response from her to Hutchinson's behaviour?
As I have pointed out earlier, if Hutchinson were close enough to the couple in order to be able to pick up a lot of details (and the man looking at him 'stern'), when why does not Mary Kelly react to his presence? This is not mentioned at all, either by Hutchinson or in Abberline's report.
Surely she would have objected to Hutchinson's interference when she was being picked up by what looks like a wealthy client? According to Hutchinson himself, she doesn't seem to have been acting as if she was in any need of protection. And surely she would have noticed Hutchinson if he was that close and there was no other people on the street.
"What is stranger is that Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis."
Exactly. Another one of those anomalies.
As for Sarah Lewis... I don't know if this is a relevant idea, merely a question (so don't waste too much energy on this)... but is it possible that the 'stout' man and woman Lewis saw was in fact Mary kelly and Blotchy Face (referring to the description 'stout') -- as has been suggested by Derek F. Osborne in his dissertation?
Still, one wonders... wouldn't Lewis had recognised Mary Kelly?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 23, 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: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Frank-- I don't think so. While I'd normally agree that if you were 'spotted' by someone (in this case Lewis) you would naturally want to include her in your account, ("Oh yeah, Mr. Abberline, that was me leaning up against the wall, I saw a lady enter the court") it could be counter-argued by those suspicious of Hutchinson that this would immediately make his motivation for coming forward all too obvious...hence he leaves her out. (Maybe that's what you're saying?) The trouble is, there is no way of knowing. I still hold that there isn't a single element in Hutchinson's actual police statement that allows one to draw a confident conclusion as to whether he belongs with the good, the bad, or the ugly. It can't even really be said with confidence that Hutchinson was even there that night. Consider this. Mrs. Maxwell comes forward within hours and the orthodox cabal of Ripperville says she had her day wrong, but Hutchinson pops in days later, and there is no doubt that he had the right night? Even when he describes Kelly as 'spreeish' when other witnesses say she's drunk off her horse? How does that one work? Every time I follow a Hutchinson thread I am reminded why witnesses are reluctant to come forward in criminal investigations...they don't want to become suspects. The way I look at it, without any further information to go by, it's pretty hard for me to conclude that a man who knew the district as well as Abberline and must have interviewed hundreds of East Enders over his career wouldn't have thought out all these angles for himself. I can understand the 'frustration,' as Harry puts it, (I can even think of a case in Indiana where a murderer did come forward to give false evidence) it's just that there are too many ways of interpretting these events, and too much missing information. Take care, RP |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 701
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hi Leanne & all,
I’ve always had the impression that the additions in the newspapers were made to make his official account seem more credible.
I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise.
This made his leaving more acceptable. “I checked, but all seemed well, so I could leave.”
I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night.
OK, he had been a bit slow and perhaps a bit afraid to come forward, but he had already made one attempt to tell the police earlier and coming forward had been on his mind before Monday evening.
I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning,
This remark seems to have been made to try to convince that the man he’d seen with Kelly was no mere figment of his imagination. He possibly lived in the neighbourhood and might even be found in Petticoat Lane (where, very conveniently, more people fitting the description of MJK’s client might be seen, by the way).
After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning.
Hutchinson might have thought that he should tell people he’d spent the night in the streets instead of in his usual lodgings before anyone found out. It would probably not look good if he turned out not to have an alibi and might look better if he actually came forward with that information himself. That he’d actually come in as soon as the Victoria Home opened was checkable and therefore probably true, which might add to his credibility.
Just my thoughts.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Gareth W-- Just now catching up with your post. Thanks for the comments. You're right about the state of the stomach, of course. It had to have been ripped; parts of the meal were evidently not only in the stomach, but also scattered in the abdominal cavity. I'll leave the poor swine alone, but I do wonder why post-mortem digestion is said to cause a 'greenish' discoloration...? RP |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 791
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Hi Harry,
You asked: Even if the cry of 'Oh murder' was common on the streets of Whitechapel,was it common at around four o'clock of a weekday morning.
Considering that the people who lived in Miller's Court who heard the one in question said it was common and that they didn't consider it unusual, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 122
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
Dan,
It was one of the witnesses in the court who said cries of that nature were common.This I believe was an excuse as to why that witness did not investigate.She did not express the notion that the cries were common at that time.
Like I said,would those sort of cries be common at 4 AM in the morning.Do you think they would be? Can you recall any incidents in the history of crime where an attack at 4AM was preceded by a cry of 'Oh murder'.
My point is,that with lack of any other evidence as to the actual time of murder,it would not be unreasonable to assume the cry signalled the commencement of the attack on Kelly. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Re: Scott Nelson"s post which provided a link to the newspaper article ,referring to the respect and regard held for Abberline by his peers ans East Londoners .
Does anyone know of any other "contemporary"
references to his character and capability as a police officer/detective?
I still think we have not got to the bottom of his Hutchinson interview. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 704
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:00 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, I’m feeling much better now, thanks!
I totally agree with you that one of the odd things is that GH doesn’t describe MJK at all, not even with one letter and that it’s like she wasn’t even there. In his official statement GH said he’d known her for about three years and very well too, or so he claimed in the newspapers. Yet, the only exchange of words between them is when she asks him for money. After that, there’s nothing. Not a nod, not a ‘hello again’, nothing. And she indeed would have had every reason to react to his interference close to the Queen’s Head public house.
As for Derek Osborne’s dissertation, its'certainly an interesting idea he puts forward. It’s possible that Sarah Lewis’ stout man was in fact Blotchy Face, but besides the description of ‘stout’ versus ‘military appearance’, there’s nothing to indicate that Hutchinson and Lewis’ man weren’t the same – which, by the way, doesn’t mean they had to be one and the same. So, it’s possible, but highly speculative, seeing that Lewis saw the man at night and paid him scant attention, whilst the gentlemen of the press were able to get a good look at GH during daytime.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3803
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Regarding Hutchinson's failure to mention anything about Mary Kelly and her reactions... yes, it's strange, isn't it? And what is even more strange is that the police seems to have disregarded it. Because even if we assume there are other reports missing, it is hard to find a suitable explanation to it.
As for Sarah Lewis and Osborne's theory, I can only say that agree with your thoughts, and it is pretty much how I've reasoned 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: 1436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Hi,
Just because Hutchinsons statement does not reflect on Mjk apart from the mention of money does not mean that at his interview he was not asked the obvious questions.
Can you describe the woman you saw.
Can you describe her clothing.
The above questions would have been obvious to ask to verify that GH was describing a liason between client / victim.
Maxwell was asked to describe the clothing of the woman she claimed to have seen to verify the correct identity.
so it would be a near certainty that Hutchinson was.
The man seen near Ringers with a smartly dressed young female and a shabbier woman [ hatless] in the shadows is intresting and would explain a lot exspecially if one is intested in a explanation.
According to the witness accounts the man wanted the well dressed woman to accompany him saying 'Are you coming?'.
But the woman appeared reluctant.
According to residents of the court, a well dressed woman not known in the court accompanied a man to Kellys room, and payment was made to someone in the house.
Question.
Was this the victim found on the bed?
I Feel the events of that night are shrowded in mystery, and somewhere there is a explanation for Maxwells much talked about sighting.
Richard. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 729
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Glenn...
Pardon me,but as I read your statement above..
"Regarding Hutchinson's failure to mention anything about Mary Kelly and her reactions..."
I'm unsure about what reaction or reactions she was supposed to have had.
Whats so strange about Hutchinson gawking at the man with MJK ?
Whats so strange in that Kelly,who knew Hutchinson, didn't "react" in a way you appear to be suggesting she "should" have ?
Since Hutchinson doesn't mention Kelly "reacting" to his perusing the man with MJK...wouldn't it be likely that this "reaction" never occurred ?
Kelly was about to go off and get busy with this guy. Maybe its just a matter of a little guilt on the part of Kelly being seen and knowing that Hutchinson would know what she was about to get busy on....and therefore she could have been a little shy about the incident.
Just a thought.........
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3804
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Oh come on, Howie.
Hutchinson pursues the couple and irritates Kelly's client, and Kelly doesn't say anything or even tries to elude him? That is not an act of a professional prostitute and it doesn't even fit the personal character descriptions we have of her, as a hot tempered woman who pretty much knew how to handle her 'business'. It was her client, for God's sake.
And this happened to a close enough distance for Hutchinson to pick up all his details and making the client annoyed about his presence.
Of course she would react -- or at least say something! This was a client dressed up like a wealthy guy, and she would have more than good reasons to get pissed off.
Why on Earth would Kelly be shy and 'feel guilty'? If Hutchinson had known Kelly for three years, then I would assume he knew pretty well how she earned her living. It was certainly no mystery to others in the area what she was doing.
Surely, it is a strange conduct from a 'friend' who knows what she is working with. I could understand it if he had followed the couple and himself been careful not being seen, but he actually interfers with her business.
The real problem is not that this isn't commented in Abberline's report (although that is singular in itself), but the fact that the whole scenario is a bit tough to swallow.
Then add to it, that no other person saw eiter Hutchinson or the couple (considering the man had such striking appearance) walking about that night. From the witness reports wone gets the impression that Mary Kelly was quite well known in her streets.
I am sorry, but I can't say your reasoning makes any sense to me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Richard,
I know I have read in one of the newspaper reports of the time about this couple outside Ringers but is it possible that you can remember which paper it was in?
Thanks a lot
Howard,
Also since he was her client and she was hoping for some decent return she may have decided to simply ignore Hutchinson"s intrusive staring!
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3805
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Richard,
Yes, others were asked to describe the clothing and appearance of the people they saw, and what they responded is also there in black and white in the reports and the accounts. That is just the point.
In Hutchinson's case it isn't.
Yes, it is obvious to us that those questions would have been asked but I can't see any evidence of that they actually were in his case.
Not to mention all the other Swiss holes.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 705
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
“… it could be counter-argued by those suspicious of Hutchinson that this would immediately make his motivation for coming forward all too obvious...hence he leaves her out.”
I must admit I hadn’t thought of that. Good point, so thanks.
“Mrs. Maxwell comes forward within hours and the orthodox cabal of Ripperville says she had her day wrong, but Hutchinson pops in days later, and there is no doubt that he had the right night?”
Besides the fact that I’m not one of those who think Mrs. Maxwell got her day wrong, I think there’s no doubt Hutchinson had the right night because of Sarah Lewis. She stated having seen a man opposite the court that night looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out and Hutchinson came forward saying he was doing exactly that at the exact time when Lewis saw this man. Furthermore, people doubted Maxwell because the time of death given by the doctors was apparently before Maxwell’s alleged sighting.
Even when he describes Kelly as 'spreeish' when other witnesses say she's drunk off her horse? How does that one work?”
Aha, so you do see the oddities in his account? Although I have to say that I see this as a minor one. MJK was drunk around midnight, but if she didn’t have anything to drink after that, the effects of the alcohol would have wore off to a certain extent at 2 am, perhaps making her just seem ‘a little bit spreeish’ at that time.
I’m not saying that Hutchinson necessarily belonged to ‘the bad’, but what I am saying is that, IMHO, his account doesn’t add up. His explanation for following the couple and remaining there for at least 45 minutes is way too thin in comparison to the rest of his very detailed account. Trying to find some kind of shelter would seem the logical thing to do considering he’d just finished a 10 mile footslog through cold and probably wet weather.
In this context GH’s following remark to the newspapers is also interesting: “After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed.” Because this not only implies that he possibly returned to the Victoria Home after 3 am, but also that the reason for walking about the remainder of the night wasn’t that he didn’t have any money, but rather that the Victoria Home was closed.
His detailed description of the client at the very least suggests that he scrutinized the man with the purpose of being able to reproduce a good description if necessary. Yet, Hutchinson stressed the fact that he didn’t think the client was dangerous – he was just surprised to see such a wealthy dressed man in the company of a woman like MJK. Why then would he need a description?
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3806
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Frank,
"Trying to find some kind of shelter would seem the logical thing to do considering he’d just finished a 10 mile footslog through cold and probably wet weather."
A very good point.
I must admit I hadn't thought of that one.
"Yet, Hutchinson stressed the fact that he didn’t think the client was dangerous – he was just surprised to see such a wealthy dressed man in the company of a woman like MJK. Why then would he need a description?"
Exactly.
And really -- would this alone be a sufficient reason enough in order for him to take upon himself to pursue them and stick his nose into her affairs? If he appeared unusually well dressed -- so what? What was the big deal?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 706
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Man, you're fast!
Exactly, what was the big deal then? I can understand that someone looking different from what the general locals look like would attract some attention and I can understand that it might strike people as odd or something to see a man like MJK's wealthy dressed client in the company of a woman like MJK, but IMHO that's hardly reason enough to interfere with the couple, follow them and wait for some 45 minutes in cold and possibly wet weather. So, what was the big deal indeed?
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 730
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Glenn...
"Hutchinson pursues the couple and irritates Kelly's client.."
Irritating by following or staring at someone is a lot different than pursuing them to rob 'em. Kelly probably was the best judge of the intent at the time, being as you say, a professional prostitute,worldwise in the ways of the street. She didn't,according to Hutchinson's testimony,become alarmed. probably because she knew Hutchinson wouldn't jump this guy. Interfering in this scenario would be just a little bit more than just walking behind or looking at them. Unless Hutchinson started to make a move on this guy, an actual physical move, then there wasn't much interference on his part. Kelly was going to get busy with this guy. Thats what she was focusing on...
I'm not arguing against your beliefs,Glenn. In fact, I enjoy 'em as always... I only posited an idea that could explain why Hutchinson didn't remark on Kelly's lack of a response. Its possible that Hutchinson was asked,but the response to the question was a mere shrug. Who knows? Whatever we may think,we weren't there to know all of what went on. Thats the only reason I put those comments up there in the first place. Women do get guilty when they are suspected of being ready to go off and do the bad thing..just ask one.
Someone could come to this thread and get the impression,despite Scott Nelson's URL above that shows how highly regarded Abberline was by his peers,that ahem...you may have an agenda against Abberline.
We both know that ain't so.
Thanks Nats, for you comments. They could be correct.
Free Abberline !!! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3807
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Howie,
I hear what you say, but I can say I agree with it or that it adds up. Sorry.
Just my opinions, friend.
Agenda against Abberline... nah, I don't know. Not as a person. I may have an agenda against the somewhat over-rated picture people have of him. That's all.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2237
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Hi Folks,
just a few thoughts on the question of formal dress codes for men.
My Dad was a very formal dresser and he was also a mason.
on special occasions he wore black tie and tails and in Summer he wore light flannels and a light blazer.All these were tailor made or bespoke.
I remember asking him what spats were and he told me and added that his grand dad had worn spats.
Dad often added a red silk handkerchief to his formal outfits and he too had a pair of kid gloves
as did both my grandmothers,my mother and even I did when really small[early fifties].
These were part of a certain acceptable type of "dress code"amongst lower middle class people right up to the aristocracy in England.
It would seem to me that Hutchinson was familiar with the Victorian versions of these English dress codes as you would expect a former groom to and a man of" military bearing" to have been.
Its my view that Hutchinsopn would have been more likely to have noticed something amiss-such as not having "kid gloves"[my dad had these too-several pairs].Not wearing spats may also have been a noticeable omission of the conventional dress code.
Regarding the gold-chain etc-every man of some "class" had a gold watch and chain-just look at the photos of the time!
IMHO there is nothing remotely suspicious about this description of Hutchinson of a middle to upper class gent.It was all in keeping. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2801
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Nats
My Dad was absolutely the same in his dress code.....also a Master Mason and what you said above touched an awful lot of chords!! He died when I was 18....quite some time ago...... but I have SUCH memories of him and also his masonic life!
Suz xx |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 707
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I don't doubt that Hutchinson's description was in keeping with a middle to upper class gent. However, I don't think that that's why people find it suspicious. Although I'm a little doubtful as to whether such a man would venture into streets like Thrawl Street and Dorset Street at that time of night, the most suspicious aspect for me is the fact that he mentioned so many details (22 or so), whilst the rest of the witness descriptions in this case contain only 3 to 9 or 10 details. Based on this and on what I've heard and read on witness descriptions in general, this is quite unusual and reason to get suspicious about it.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Well what I am getting at Frank is that there was probably a kind of "blueprint" a mental pattern for how you would expect a man from a certain class to dress.A glance might be sufficient to see whether he was correctly attired from head to toe viz-white shirt and tie,waistcoat;gold watch and chain with tie pin,dark suit of good quality[the cut/fall of the material];polished shoes and spats;leather/kid gloves,dark felt hat and in Winter a dark coloured overcoat.
This was almost certainly a kind of "uniform" among better off Englishmen and it was probably an "omission" such as not wearing spats,a watch,a
hat and gloves that would have drawn attention not the other way round.So when he was being questioned all Abberline would have had to do was run through the normal dress code.
Similarly with regard to his facial hair-"did he have a moustache?what kind-a handle bar? a slight moustache/ a big bushy moustache "etc
Did he look at you?How did he look at you---?
The press quotes probably got it wrong too and misquoted Hutchinson and the bushy eyebrow bit because thats not quite the description given to Abberline---clearly he is indicating someone with dark and quite noticeable eyes though.
I dont see him either as a typical Jewish stereotype.This is more often towards a stockier build and fleshier appearance and a distinctly large, slightly hooked nose-the stereotype that is.
That was young Suzi to have lost your Dad.Nice to know it brought back memories!
Nats
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 123
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
A question.Did Hutchinson walk ten miles that day or twenty miles?.For if he walked ten miles from Romford,then he must have walked ten miles to Romford.Then perhaps he walks around Romford on whatever business he went there to pursue,and also strolls the streets of Whitechapel after returning.An amazing person this Hutchinson.
Of course he may have gotten a lift to Romford,or travelled there during the preceeding days.Perhaps he never went there at all.
Glen is correct.It was a sloppy interview by Abberline.It leaves too many questions unanswered.No wonder the case was never solved. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
G'day,
Richard is right in saying that just because Hutchinson's statement doesn't describe Mary Kelly's clothing, it doesn't prove that he wasn't asked to describe it. It would have sounded more 'constructed' if he had have wrote: 'Just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly in her red pelerine and dark shabby skirt....'
If George Hutchinson had known Mary Kelly for three years, (and perhaps used her 'services' over that time), that would mean that she was disobeying Joseph Barnett's orders to stay 'off the streets' all the time they were together!
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
The cry of murder was heard by two witnesse. One of the woman claimed that is sounded like it was very close. This is the problem I have, if George's man was the ripper, and he was correct about the times, and the cry of murder was Kelly, what did the ripper do for over an hour with Kelly before he killed her.
I understand that the strange noises were common at night, and it may not have been unusuall to hear a cry of murder. However, If I lived in the court, and I heard a cry of murder, and the next day my neighbor was hacked to bits, I might have cause for concern. How often did a cry of murder occur. Did it happen every night? Did it happen every other night, or third night? Did it occur once a month, or was it just once in a while. My point is, it is not unusual to hear a cry of murder, Okay, but how often did it happen.
If I was a detective working the case, and two witnesses claimed to hear a cry of oh murder at the same time, it would definately send up a red flag, and I would consider the posibility that Kelly went back out after three in the morning, or that Hutchison was either mistaken about the time, or he was lieing. I am sure that the detctives considerd all posibilities. The cry of murder is not something they would have discarded, and not given consideration.
Your friend,Brad |
Andrew P Brattle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Dear all,
As a newcomer to this site, I would like to post a few thoughts as to why Hutchinsons statement may seem to contain so many anomalies, and I would very much appreciate your comments.
Firstly, if we assume Hutchinsons motive on the night was to rob MJK's well dressed customer, would this not at least go some of the way toward explaining the high level of detail he gives in his description to the Police? ie he was effectively casing the joint, seeing if it was worth the effort. Secondly, is it not possible that MJK would have been aware of Hutchinsons intentions and possibly even party to them. In other words, she may have a pre-existing arrangement with Hutchinson whereby she lures a well dressed chap into her rooms, conducts her business, and then the waiting Hutchinson robs the client of anything of value, for which she then receives a cut? This would explain the lack of any sort of response from MJK to Hutchinson staring at her client.
Anyway, assuming robbery is Hutchinsons intent, this would initially explain his reticence to go to the police upon hearing of MJK's murder. However, when a few days later he hears of the pardon for anybody connected with the case who is not the murderer, he decides to go to the police.
Upon arrival he says to Abberline, "look, I saw a man with Kelly on the night of the murder, but my intention was to rob him, so I am happy to describe him, but I will not sign anything that implicates me in a robbery". What would Abberline do? I am assuming that pardons such as this would not be an everyday occurence, and perhaps the way the statement was worded was an attempt by Abberline to include all the pertinent details, whilst not implicating Hutchinson with a seperate crime.
Furthermore, what if, rather than hanging around for three quarters of an hour and then disappearing, Hutchinson did see MJK's client come out of Millers Court and proceeded to rob him? This could explain the references to Petticoat Lane that Hutchinson gave to the Times. Perhaps he was there selling his ill gotten gains, and possibly he did see his victim there, who was trying to recover the lost items. This again would explain why Hutchinson could be so specific in his description, especially if he had in his possession some of the items he describes. I feel this would also explain why the Police gave Hutchinsons statement so much credence in otherwise suspect circumstances.
Finally, whilst I admit that all of my post is highly speculative, I would be very interested to read what people feel may have happened to the rippers mindset if, highly unlikely as it may appear, having just completed the horrific murder of MJK Jack leaves the scene of the crime and is immediately set upon and robbed by Hutchinson, possibly even losing the tools of his trade in the process! |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Harry.
A perfectly sensible statement, and I couldn't agree with you more. It would be hard to believe, even under normal circumstances, that cries of "murder", especially at 4 am. in the morning, would be common.
But, with the whole East End in terror after at least four murders, then no one could dismiss those cries as common. The truth is probably what you said. That the two women who stated that they heard these cries, were simply too afraid to investigate, and covered up their feelings of shame by saying that such cries were common.
As Philip Sugden quoted, "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both women disregarded what was Mary's last desparate cry for help".
Harry, I agree with you that these cries signalled the start of the attack on Kelly.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
With this talk of Scott Nelson and his respected views on the case, I think we all ought to wish him well, wherever he is. He is one of the best anthropological/historical thinkers concerning the Whitechapel murders.
|
Gene Autrey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Frank,
I think Hutchinson was one of the good guys. I think he knew Mary. He sees an unusually dressed bloke walking with her and waits for them to pass. He tries to get a look at the bloke but the man keeps hos head down so he can't see him properly. Hutchinson doesn't like tkis behavior so he follows them. he sees that MJK seems happy so he feels less disturbed. They go up Miller's Court and Hutchinson decides to wait to see if the bloke comes out again soon and in what state he appears - if chap looks flustered maybe Hutchinson would do something eg. challenge him or go and see mary. Nothing happens within half an hour so Hutchinson disappears assuming everything to be ok. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:01 am: |
|
G'day Gene,
Here's where the problems lie with your assumption, and why we can't just accept Hutchinson's statement: If he was such a good, law abiding guy, why did he wait for three days after her murder to come forward with his information?
He told the newspapers that he had no suspicions that this guy was a murderer, so why did he wait outside for three quarters of a hour?
If he was so concerned for Mary Kelly's safety, why did he just walk away without checking on her first?
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Andrew,
First thing is first, welcome aboard.
Thats an interesting view you have. A quid pro quo, with Hutchinson admitting to intending to rob (though cannot see why) or actually robbing the killer..
Yes, I can see that and it would explain why the statement has something missing. Some of my issues with that are if he was intending to rob him but didnt, then I cannot see him admitting that. There would have been no reason. If he had robbed the guy then what Hutchinson may find upon the murderers persons surely would have pushed Hutchinson into acting rapidly, like that very moment, by accosting the chap or setting off for the nearest Copper.
Its easy for me to say though.
Yes Andrew, a valid explanation for the 'slack' Hutchinson statement and Police actions with regards to him. However, I cannot help but feel that if this was the case, somebody somewhere (memoirs perhaps?) would have included this story.
Cheers,
Monty
PS DMR,
Re Scott. You and me both.
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 125
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
C,B. and David,
Thanks for your comments.Of course there could be many possibilities as to what happened.Whether Hutchinson told the truth,or fabricated his story,if we accept 4AM as the start of the attack on Kelly,we should revise our thoughts,and think how the latter time might effect the overall view of her killing.It certainly would not change my opinion of Hutchinson as a prime suspect. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 126
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
4AM would certainly fit in with the known times of at least two of the murders.That of Nicholls and Chapman,so it might show a degree of patience on the killer's part,in that he might have waited a large part of each night of those murders,before an opportunity presented itself.
As to a domestic crime,well again it might appear an unusual time for a murder of that nature to occur,and as such crimes are, in the main ,preceeded by an amount of yelling and screaming,the occupants of the court would have been alerted before the last cry of Oh! murder! |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Hi Harry.
Once again, I'm with you all the way. My thinking precisely.
I think it likely that the Ripper WAS a patient man, prepared to prowl all night if necessary, and maybe even passing up other TOO risky opportunities before selecting his victim.
Questions have always been asked as to why there were no murders in October. It could be that he was still prowling throughout that month, but due to the fear and panic among the prostitutes, not to mention the increased patrols by Police and amateur groups following the double event, he may simply have come up empty handed.
That may have turned his thinking towards finding a victim who might invite him indoors, for the right price. Dressing smartly, looking prosperous, and with a disarming and friendly manner, would certainly have increased his chances of receiving such an invitation.
Despite the doubts raised by some, there's no doubt in my mind that Kelly was a Ripper victim.
The points you make, regarding the time, and the likelihood of an amount of yelling and screaming preceding a domestic killing, only serve to increase my beliefs.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
