|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gene Autrey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:15 pm: | 
|
Hello Leanne,
Speaking to such an illustrious contributor-Thanx for responding.
Re Hutchinson:-
Three questions; 1)Why did he wait three days
2)Why did he wait 3/4s of an hour without suspicion of man with MJK
3)why did he go without checking on MJK.
1)He was not a law abiding character-thought he might incriminate himself-scared or v. apprehensive of whole situation.
2)Saying to reporters that he was not suspicious of character with Mary-guilt that he didn't do anything-scared of well dressed man's influence in society-Further to this whole confusing thing, it's a contradiction for him to say he had no suspicions and then hang around for three quarters of an hour. 2 reasons- he was a pest or he had extremely strong feelings for Mary or thirdly he was told to look out for her.Then to point three:-
3)Why did he leave at all without checking on Mary? a)He didn't want to be a complete pest! b)serious interpretation of a)-he had no real suspicions, just a vague doubt. Perhaps he could have gone back later but 'the sponge was up' by then anyway(if he had gone to sleep somewhere for many hours)
Thanx Leanne, interested in your thoughts, All the best, gene. |
Gene Autrey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Two further points regarding Harry's suggestions above:-
If Hutchinson murdered Kelly, why did he kill her in such a fashion?
If he was The Ripper, why did they let him go?
Yours faithfully, G. Nautrey. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 12:51 am: |
|
Hi everyone! There has been a great deal of mention that a cry of "Oh, murder!" would have been common in the East End, even if it was at 4a.m., and many people believe that this cry was when Mary was first attacked. Looking at the photographs of Mary I think it would be safe to say that the mutilations done to her took some time. If Mary did cry out, would JtR trust that nobody would heed her?
Sandy |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3853
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
Just some pointers.
Harry wrote:
"As to a domestic crime,well again it might appear an unusual time for a murder of that nature to occur"
Well, not really, since we have to take Kelly's movements and sleeping habits into account, since she was a prostitute and her time clock doesn't seem to be compared to those of ordinary working people. I would guess that would go for some of her male friends as well. And looking at the witnesses, quite many people in East End - not to mention Miller's Court - seem to have been awake rather late (or should I say 'early').
Besides, many domestic murders are perpetrated very late at night or early in the morning, so I can't see the Miller's Court murder breaking any pattern in that regard.
"...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!"
Another argument I will never be able to understand.
Why on Earth should a domestic murder necessarily be foreplayed by a lot of screaming? I don't think the Ripper had any monopoly on taking his victims by surprise.
I would say, the fact that there was a great element in surprise in the murder (with no signs of longer struggle, apart from some possible wounds on Kelly's thumb and arms) actually indicates that she knew her attacker! You can't provide a better circumstance for an element of surprise than that.
After Kelly's uttered 'Oh murder!' her killer may have held her hand over her mouth while attacking her etc. I really can't see why there should be a lot of noise preceeding the actual killing; this is a total misconception based on wrong expectations and generalisations. Quite many domestic murders have been perpetrated without the neighbours hearing anything, and once again - the Miller's Court murder does not appear singular in that regard either.
All the best
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: 3854
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Gene,
I don't think Hutchinson murdered Kelly. Hanging around outside the crime scene that long either before or after the murder would be close to idiotic, at least careless on the boundaries of stupidity. Nor would coming forward to the police would be particularly smart if he really had killed her - that would have been a too risky game to play.
It is more likely Hutchinson either was an attention-seeker (as many others) or had other business in the Miller's Court area he didn't want the police to know about, since he thought he may have been recognised.
Regarding your questions to Leanne, those are exactly the questions (among others) that should have been raised during the interview and in the police report regarding Hutchinson. They weren't.
I urge you to read Stewart P. Evan's article about the Hutchinson testimony in latest Ripper Notes.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 08, 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: 133
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Gene,
We are led to believe that Hutchinson,s story of a male in Kelly's company,was believed by Aberline,so at that time,at least,there was no suspicion on which to arrest Hutchinson.
Sandy,
I would suggest that if the cry did originate with the commencement of the attack on Kelly,then it would have been of concern to the killer,who would wait anxiously for any sign of investigation by those that might hear it.
The only person likely to be classed as of a domestic connection,was Barnett,and if he was the killer he did it without any domestic disturbance or provocation.Quite out of character for him,I would think.Especialy the added mutilation. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3856
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
As for the cry, if it originated from Kelly (which I believe it did), then it is my firm belief that that would have disturbed the Ripper more than anyone.
Judging from his other crimes - who were pretty silent in comparison and showed no signs of struggle at all from the victims - he seems to have been very careful about not bringing any attention to his actions while they were committed, and that he didn't want the victim to struggle in any way.
I don't think the Ripper would have stayed in there and continued with the mutilations, if that cry came from Kelly. I would say remaining there after the victim had cried out loudly would be strongly out of character for him.
As for people with domestic connections to Kelly, there are actually two... Barnett and Joe Flemming. Both of whom we know very little, and certainly not enough in order to write them off and decide what is out of character for any of them. Our knowledge about Barnett's 'character' is limited, to say the least.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
G'day,
I agree that Mary Kelly knew Hutchinson's intensions of robbing well-dressed man, and if she didn't already have an arrangement to receive a 'cut' she would have sought and expected one.
If Abberline was so familiar with the East End's underworld and the habbits of booty-scouts and theives, he wouldn't have needed a confession from Hutchinson to guess his reason's for waiting outside so long. I believe it's possible that Abberline was willing to shield Hutchinson from prossecution in the hope that he would 'keep his eye's peeled' amoungst the local criminals.
If those two witnesses heard a cry of "OH MURDER!" and didn't investigate because such cries were common, then noted that the cry came from the direction of Kelly's room, I wonder were they commonly heard comming from her room?
'If Mary did cry out, would JtR trust that nobody would hear her' That's why I believe he cut her throat first, tossed Maria Harvey's clothes in the fire, smoked his pipe and left it on the mantlepiece, then decided that she was no better than the other women he had killed so proceeded to mutilate her body.
LEANNE |
BenH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote: "Hanging around outside the crime scene that long either before or after the murder would be close to idiotic, at least careless on the boundaries of stupidity."
Possibly, but bear in mind that we only have it on the dubious authority of George Hutchinson himself that he remained at the scene of the crime for as long as he did. Sarah Lewis described the presence of a loitering individual who I believe to have been GH, but does she provide any indication as to how long he remained where he did?
Additionally, if GH was where he SAID he was at the time, it ought to be remembered that he was not *aware* that he had been seen - at least, not at the time.
"Nor would coming forward to the police would be particularly smart if he really had killed her - that would have been a too risky game to play."
I would respectfully submit that it would have been far less prudent for GH to have said nothing, thus allowing for the possibility of Sarah Lewis indentifying him in the street at some later point. Would it not have reflected very poorly indeed on Hutchinson had Sarah Lewis come forward with something akin to:
"Oh, remember that loitering man I mentioned at the inquiry? Well, I've seen him subsequently and I gather his name is..."..You get the idea.
I believe he came forward for the purposes of negating that dangerous possibility. |
Richard Gilchrist
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hello all.
As a born Londoner, and East-Ender, I've read these message-boards with great fascination, whilst contributing nothing myself. There are some very worthwhile contributors here, who do a great deal of personal research in trying to unmask this most famous of murderers. I refer to people like Andy Spallek, Rob Clack, A.P.Wolf, to name but three, but there are a few others too.
I learned much about the Ripper case, and the atmosphere of terror in Whitechapel, from my late Grandfather on my Mother's side, who died in 1965 at the age of 95, when I was 17. He resided in Shoreditch at the time of the murders, and had several friends who lived close to murder sites. Our family left London for North Wales 25 years ago.
For what it's worth, my grandfather told me that while he had no idea whatsoever of what was in the minds of the police hierarchy of senior officers, the general consensus of opinion among the local Bobbies on the beat, with whom they had daily contact, was that the Ripper was NOT a local man, but an outsider who stole into Whitechapel, slaughtered his victims, and disappeared out of the vicinity as suddenly as he came.
He(my Grandfather) said that even before the double event, there was a lot of police presence around the escape routes back into the City, and this increased even more following the Mitre Square murder. My Grandfather's main claim to fame, was that he knew Catharine Eddowes, though only by sight, and said that day or night, drunk or sober, she was always singing.
The one thing that really annoys me on these boards, is the ridiculous accusations made about innocent people like Barnett and Fleming in connection with the Kelly murder. The people mainly responsible HERE for these wild imaginings and theories, are foreigners who know nothing about our history, our culture, or our way of life.
For better or worse, Jack the Ripper is part of our heritage and history. I can tell people like Glenn Andersson, that our police and doctors of the time, our people, both then and now, KNOW without a doubt that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly, and Mr.Andersson's views carry no weight here whatsoever, and won't change our history one jot.
My advice Mr.Andersson, is to stay at home, and write about your own criminals. You'll NEVER be an Englishman.
To those honest researchers I mentioned at the start of this message, I say, keep up the good work, and stay in pursuit of reality, instead of getting involved with some of these fairy stories here.
Good hunting
RICHARD
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I doubt that GH was concerned with Kelly's safety. He may have been waiting for Kelly to come back out. He may have wanted something from her. He may have wanted a place to stay for the night. I think Hutchinson wanted something and that is the only reason he would have hung around.
It is not unusuall for people not to want to involve themself in a criminal investigation. Witnesses often never come forward. I dont think that we can read to much into the fact that George did not come forward sooner.
What do we know about George's claims? We know Abberline believed him. We know that he was never suspected of being the ripper.
I am torn. On one hand I believe Hutchinson's story, but I also believe that Kelly was killed after 3:30 in the morning. If Hutchinson's claim is true, and his times are acurate, I dont think the man he saw could have been the ripper. I doubt that Jack would have waited over an hour before killing Kelly. If he did wait that long, what were they doing all that time.
We have a few posibilities,
1. Hutchenson is telling the truth, and the woman did hear Kelly scream. George's man was not the ripper, and Kelly went back out after 3:30
2. Hutchinson was telling the truth. The woman did hear Kelly scream. George's man was the ripper, and for some reason Jack waited an hour and halve to kill Kelly.
3. Hutchinson was telling the truth. The cry of murder was not from Kelly, and Hutchinson's man was the ripper.
4. Hutchinson was telling the truth, but he was mistaken about the time. The woman did hear Kelly scream, and she was killed after 3:30
5. Hutchison is mistaken about the morning he saw Kelly. The women did hear Kelly scream and she was killed after 3:30
6. Hutchinson was mistaken about the morning he saw Kelly. The scream did not come form Kelly, and she could have been killed any time between 1:00am and 10:45am
7. Hutchinson lied for some reason. The women did hear Kelly scream, and she was killed after 3:30 in the morning
8. Hutchison is Lieing for some reason. The women did not hear Kelly scream, and she could have been killed any time between 1:00am and 10:45
There are so many diferent posibilities. I would go with number one.
Your friend Brad
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Is it possible that Hutchinson's detailed description came about in the following manner --Hutchinson has a fairly good memory and provides the police with the details that he can remember. Those details are then "fleshed out" by the police questioning him ---"What kind of hat was he wearing? Was it a bowler or some other type like a sailor's cap? Did he have any rings or a watch chain?" As his description becomes more detailed, he becomes more "believable" to the police. Hutchinson is now getting positive reinforcement of his story and he himself starts to "believe" in what he is saying adding things that he "thinks" he saw. The important thing to remember is that both Hutchinson and the police were working toward the same goal. The police wanted a description of the Ripper and Hutchinson wanted to erase suspicion surrounding himself, appear cooperative and possibly claim the reward. A detailed description is in both their interests. In effect, both sides inadvertently "created" the description that we have today. |
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Richard,
I just want to say that I feel that your comments about Glenn are inappropriate. This is a discussion board and people should feel free to discuss their opinions without a bunch of nationalistic B.S. being directed at them. Disagreements are obviously welcome, but these should be kept respectful and on topic. Mr. Andersson (and many others), have always made me feel comfortable even if he/they disagree with me. We are not all going to agree on certain issues, and having the opportunity to take into consideration other perspectives is what makes these boards great.
Sandy |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
As to the cry of "Oh Murder" being ignored, how often have you heard an auto alarm go off in a parking lot? Do you immediately call 911 or whatever number is used for emergencies in your country? Do you rush to find a police officer or security guard?
Richard, you set me thinking. My first reaction to your statement about police being posted on the routes back into the City both before and even more after the double event was to dismiss it. I did that because of the Goulston Street Graffito which was found on a trajectory in the opposite direction from the City.
Then it came to me that Warren had insisted on blotting it out. If he was adamant about removing the content before it was seen, might he also have been adamant about hiding the true location?
One thing that has always bothered me about the GSG is the fact that we know about its existence today. If Warren was so determined to shove it under the rug why is it possible to read about it today on this site or any Ripper book. Why do we know about it when there is so much else that has been lost to history? Why did it take so long to be discovered by the beat cops?
Suppose that instead of fleeing into Whitechapel after the Eddowes killing Jack ran in the opposite direction, toward the city. Suppose the apron piece was actually dropped somewhere else, some location in a westerly direction from Mitre Square. Suppose it was found right away but for political reasons the true location was suppressed.
It was rushed to Goulston Street and planted there by someone who didn't notice the graffito above it. Then Warren, just as he is congratulating himself on damage control finds out that this anti-semitic garbage was on the wall above where it was planted the whole time. People are making inferences and suggesting connections. No wonder he would have had no compunction about erasing it. He knew it wasn't evidence.
It explains why the apron piece took so long to turn up in Goulston Street. It explains why Warren erased the graffito, and if Richard is right it explains why escape routes back into the City were heavily patrolled after the double event. It also explains why we know about the apron and graffito today. Warren suppressed the actual location and what we have today is a scenario created for public consumption.
(Message edited by diana on August 08, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3858
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
David Gilchrist,
"I can tell people like Glenn Andersson, that our police and doctors of the time, our people, both then and now, KNOW without a doubt that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly, and Mr.Andersson's views carry no weight here whatsoever, and won't change our history one jot."
Unfortunately I am not the only one carrying these views, and that particular possibility is supported by at least a couple of researchers that has far longer experience in the case than I have. I am afraid it is not 'fairy stories' except than in your own head, and some representatives from modern law enforcement (not just academic scholars) takes this option seriously and believes that the police of 1888 -- quite correctly -- may have made a terrible mistake.
As for 'our police and doctors of the time, our people, both then and now, KNOW without a doubt', that is really a questionable thing to say, not to mention unsupported.
Those who can claim with absolute certainty which victim that can be attributed to Jack the Ripper or not with such total certainty (maybe with the exception of Chapman and Eddowes) as the one you express, please provide the evidence to support it.
Get real, Richard. There IS NO 'know without a doubt' in the Ripper case. Only those who wants answers that fits their own expectations believes that.
As for the views of your late grandfather... it is of course interesting that he knew Eddowes by sight and had some insight. But -- and no offense -- I fail to see why we should take his opinions at face value and rely more on them than those expressed in other contemporary sources or police statements.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Diana,
I agree with you about the very real possibility that the cry of "Oh, Murder" would have been ignored whether through desensitization or through fear. What I am wondering is if JtR would have been confident enough to believe that nobody would investigate. One thing to consider about the fact that he was inside is that he only had one way out. I can only guess at the amount of time it would have taken him to accomplish the amount of destruction that he had inflicted on her, but it does seem to me that he would have been there for a while after he cut her throat. I feel that if she did in fact cry out, then whoever was responsible for her murder and subsequent mutilation would have been extremely confident.
Sandy |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Well, just to sort the small change out of my long pocket, I do have sincere doubts about poor old Mary Jane being a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.
I like the internationalism of this forum, and I welcome all, especially Glenn. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3860
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Thanks, AP. The next brandy is on me. 
Yes yes, I know... Spanish.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4744
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Well, I do think that MJK was a JTR victim, but I welcome Glenn's contributions, even if he hasn't posted the Swedish Abba lyrics that he promised.
Two sugars in my tea please, Glenn.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3864
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Oh blimey, Robert.
I had completely forgotten about that. Sorry. Well, I hope to get around to it in due time.
Do you seriously suggest that one Assistant Commissioner should serve the other one tea???
Well, OK then... if you will be so kind to supply me with a cup of coffee -- black, please. No cream or milk and no sugar.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 513
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Like you, my family on both sides have lived in the Whitechapel/Shoreditch area since the mid 1850's and I grew up in the East End and taught local history in Geffryes Museum for some years.
I do realise that having a local knowledge of the case can be a great asset. However a local knowledge is not the be all and end all.
Researchers from all over the world have done work which have propelled the case from a tangled mass of hotch potch material to a database of information that is truly remarkable.
There are many leading researchers who feel that there is some serious question about Mary's inclusion as a victim of Jack The Ripper.
I personally feel that it is a least a reasonable possiblity that she was a victim of a domestic killing.......perhaps not Barnett or Hutchinson, but there are other candidates from Mary's rather dubious past that could be included in a suspect list. It is an area well worth further research.
Glenn's knowledge of the case has nothing to do with his nationality.......he has as good a knowledge as almost anyone on the boards.
He has contributed some impressive posts to these boards and has the respect of most people here.
I feel your comments about his nationality are very offensive and have no bearing on his approach to the case whatsoever.
As Glenn has always said, there is very little about this case that is set in concrete......we know very little and unless we examine all sensible avenues then we will never 'know' any more than we do at present.
Jane
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:13 pm: |
|
I agree. I think Glen's contributions are very valuable. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 818
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I would have to agree with you to an extent. I think it's extremely unlikely that Mary Jane Kelly was killed by someone who wasn't the serial murderer we now know as Jack the Ripper. But then I don't think we can rule out Hutchinson or Barnett, even though I don't find either one to have all that strong of a case against him. (Not that I think anyone has a strong case against him, but anyway...)
On the other hand, I'm not from England and have no relatives who were in the area and listening to idle gossip at the time (or inventing it up later), so I guess my opinion doesn't count then.
But I am from Wisconsin and do have a relative near where Jeffrey Dahmer lived who swears up and down that Dahmer was framed (as part of a highly bigoted conspiracy theory that I won't risk spreading by repeating) for the serial killing necrophilia deaths of all those people. So I guess all the police reports and authors from outside of Wisconsin to write about the case who all say that he did do it must be wrong. Because, you know, my relative said so. And I'm from Wisconsin!
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 667
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Richard Gilchrist,
Your post was a put on, right? A parody of a neo-Col. Blimp blathering about "England for the English" (even though my Celtic ancestors were enjoying this "sceptered isle" long before the Angles and Saxons arrived) with a new twist about preserving the cultural purity of a sick serial killer.
Bravo, a masterly performance and you fooled a lot of people. But you should fess up and accept the plaudits for your little prank. Otherwise, people will really think you believe that silly screed you posted.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
If your post was a desire to gain attention it solved its purpose.
Glenn, myself and a number of other registered members happen to believe that the slaying of Mary Jane has hallmarks of a domestic.
my own opinion is very simple, i believe Joseph Barnett not only killed her but was the infamous 'Jack'.
If it was not him it was someone from her past that she had deceived.
The killings stopped with her death.
I am of pure english descent and i dont believe in fairy stories, but i have strong instincts regarding this case over a span of 40yrs.
The casebook is all about opinions and you are welcome to yours but may i respectively request that some kind of respect is shown in your comments.
Regards Richard. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 134
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:33 am: |
|
Of course it is only my opinion that 4AM or thereabouts is an unusual time for any type of murder,and that time ,I feel sure,would rate lowly in statistics of times of murder as a whole.
It seems that there was little traffic in or out of the court after midnight,and none apparently between 3o'clock and 5,30AM.(except the murderer?)The cry is the only incident reported between those times.
Of course Glen,you are correct in saying domestic murder is not always preceded by arguement and noise,but again opinion might be that ,on balance,it normally is.
One thing that puzzles me,is how such a large number of prostitutes ,in such a poor area as Whitechapel was,could hope to make much of a living,and still peddle their trade there.
Then again,perhaps the description,'prostitute',adds a certain drama to the things that happened there. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3871
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
People, people,
I don't want Richard's little contribution to take over this thread. It is just not worth it. I do not expect everyone to agree with my beliefs in this case anyway.
Still, thanks for the kind support, not to mention from those of you who don't share my opinion on MJK. It just shows that you have a lot of true friends here when it comes down to it, in spite of disagreements.
Harry,
I would say, in my experience, that late at night or early morning is quite a common time of day for domestic murders to occurre. Still, I don't have statistics to back it up, but it is a conclusion I make from several cases I've heard of or studied. This was also a relatively busy time of day for prostitutes, and according to the witness statements in the MJK murder, there were some activity during those hours in the court. On 4 AM some people also seems to have gotten ready to go to work.
"One thing that puzzles me,is how such a large number of prostitutes ,in such a poor area as Whitechapel was,could hope to make much of a living,and still peddle their trade there."
Yes, I have been thinking the same thing. There must have been quite a lot of competition amongst them, and one seriously doubt if there really were clients for all of them. It must have been a rotten life.
I have seen a number presented somewhere regarding unfortunates in East End; I don't remember, but I recall there seems to have been a vast amount of them - full time or occasional ones who took to the streets when they could not see another way.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Is it possible for someone to correct the spelling on this threads title? Otherwise in the future when people search 'Hutchinson' this thread and the comments will not be found. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3874
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Blimey, Bob.
I hadn't even noticed that myself. You are absolutely right.
Maybe it is best to notify Stephen about it, since I assume he is the only one who can do it.
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: 2368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
I thought the thread might have been started by someone with a lisp, so I was being politically correct even though I noticed the error right from the start. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
G'day,
I once called a thread 'Pearl Poll' and no one noticed! LEANNE |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 632
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Richard Gilchrist -
How DARE you come onto here with the great big "I AM" and insult someone as knowledgable and decent as Glenn.
You, sir, are the worst kind of arrogant pig this country has a bad name for.
I am LIVID about this, people!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 1:43 am: |
|
G'day,
GLENN, just ignore Richards Gilchrist's ugly post. If we don't broaden our minds and allow a little sensible speculative thinking here, the case can never be solved, because it wasn't!
The Bobbies on the beat were probably convinced that the Ripper wasn't a local man because he outsmarted them. That's exactly the reason why I believe he WAS a local man. He knew exactly how to best avoid patrolling Bobbies, and never escaped back into the city because he lived in the East End!
LEANNE! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3881
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Leanne,
As for ignoring that post, I already have. No worries.
"The Bobbies on the beat were probably convinced that the Ripper wasn't a local man because he outsmarted them. That's exactly the reason why I believe he WAS a local man. He knew exactly how to best avoid patrolling Bobbies, and never escaped back into the city because he lived in the East End!"
I totally agree with this.
Besides, we know the police officials - although they clearly tried to look in every direction possible with fairly open minds - never seems to have ruled out a local man, so if the Bobbies shared the view of the Ripper not being a local, then they weren't that much in agreement with their superiors.
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: 1819
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Glenn,
Dew states that the local Bobbies were stop/searching strangers, not locals.
Of course, it begs the question what the new drafted in Bobbies doing. seeing as they couldnt tell local from stranger.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on August 10, 2005)
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I did leave a message for you on the "witnesses - Caroline Maxwell" thread, a couple of weeks ago, but you obviously didn't see it. I was really interested as to your reasons for having doubts about Kelly's inclusion as a JtR victim, and hoped to discuss that with you in the near future.
Though I'm a believer that she "was" his victim, I know that you're not the sort of guy who is swayed easily without good evidence, so I'm really curious. But my appetite has been somewhat dampened by the recent happenings all over these boards. You asked me why I've never registered.
Well, the answer to that is easy.
I read sometime back, that some JtR authors refused to attend conferences if certain other rivals were present. Apparently there is much ill feeling between various authors. I could hardly believe that educated grown men could behave so childishly.
Now I find the same situation rife on these boards, with bitter rivalries breaking out everywhere. Everyone has a right to their personal opinions, and without concrete proof no one can say} that another person's opinions are either right or wrong. Healthy debate is good, but we must agree or disagree with a good measure of respect. Now you know why I stand off and remain unregistered, just contributing when I feel strongly about a certain point. I actually think that guy Richard was trying to be helpful at first, but lost the plot and spoilt things with his evident aversion to anyone who isn't English.
Anyway Glenn, if you ever get time and want to discuss your views about Kelly, without having to stick to a particular thread, my E-Mail address is as follows ---- Dcartwrightg@aol.com
Best wishes
DAVID C.
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I would be interested to know how much danger Jack would be in (or would feel he was in) simply walking the streets late at night. Apparently Bobbies were stopping and searching strangers. Did the Citizen's Committee have the same authority? If he were stopped and searched, how difficult would it have been to explain away a knife? If he gave no further cause for suspicion could he have gotten away with saying he wanted to protect himself from gangs and the Ripper? Even if he were brought in for questioning (and assuming that it was prior to a killing and that his clothes were not bloody) could he talk his way out of it?
People have commented that it was quite dangerous for Mary Kelly to have been out so late at night when it was cold and the streets deserted but what about Jack? How cautious did he have to be? Would any man fitting the rough descriptions given by witnesses be stopped and questioned? I think this is something that could be researched to see if there are any more statements like Dew's that give some indication of police procedures at the time. It might give us some idea of how cautious Jack needed to be. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Sandy,
Hi. Here is a possible (even if unlikely) scenario --- Mary's scream precedes her death by a second or two. Jack, fearing that someone will investigate, flees through the open window. He waits hidden nearby for a reasonable amount of time to convince himself that all is safe. He then reenters her room and proceeds with his mutilations. I don't think this is likely but it does offer the intriguing idea that her death and subsequent mutilations did not occur simultaneously. |
AJC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi,
Regarding George Hutchinson as a reliable witness, the way I see it there are two possibilities:
a) George Hutchinson was nowhere in the vicinity of Millers Ct when Kelly was murdered and he was simply attention seeking and had absolutely no connection to her whatsoever, or I suppose possibly was known to Mary Kelly and rather fond of her and wanted to be connected to the case.
b) “George Hutchinson” if indeed that was even his real name, was indeed JtR and simply fabricated a story to direct police attention away from himself, in which case he was most successful.
As BenH so eloquently stated earlier in the thread ;0)
“…we only have it on the dubious authority of George Hutchinson himself that he remained at the scene of the crime for as long as he did.”
Either way, in my humble opinion, the testimony of George Hutchinson is complete rubbish, either entirely fictional or entirely manipulated. All of it, from the meeting with Kelly earlier, if it happened at all, to the man she supposedly entered Millers Ct with. If indeed he had been spotted by Lewis, then in my own, and it looks like Ben’s opinion too, he need only have been there long enough to be spotted before he entered Kelly’s room and killed her. One would also have to consider, of course that Sarah Lewis sighted somebody else. Hutchinson’s testimony can quite literally be pulled apart. Walking from Romford would have been no mean feat, especially when he wants us to accept that he then spent almost an hour standing at Millers Ct. As pointed out by Garry Wroe, in order for him to have even walked into Kelly as he said he did he would have had to walk all the way from Romford and then right past his lodgings. The notion that Kelly was “spreeish” and not utterly trolleyed as sustained by other sources also does not match along with a myriad of additional ramblings.
With regard to his coming forward to the police I agree with Ben entirely.
“…it would have been far less prudent for GH to have said nothing, thus allowing for the possibility of Sarah Lewis indentifying him in the street at some later point. Would it not have reflected very poorly indeed on Hutchinson had Sarah Lewis come forward…” [and identify him at a later date, making him look exceedingly suspicious]. Far better to invent a conveniently Jewish and vulgar sounding character parading around the east end covered in “Bling” whose very description would disgust people. If this man had not emerged by 3 when GH left, you would have to consider that in her condition, (paraletic) Kelly was not ready to tout for more business, and that if you believe Hutchinson then this veritable pantomime villain is Jack the Ripper. Hardly fits the FBI profile does it?
There have been quite a few posts in this thread questioning the viability of Kelly as a Ripper victim, it is my belief that not only was she one of Jack's victims, but that perhaps in this particular case, it is not the first victim that will reveal the most detail as to the serial killer, but possibly the last. I think it goes without saying that Kelly knew her killer, perhaps rather well shown by the fact that she was willing to let him inside more than once (supported as I believe by the missing key and the locked door) and that he was willing to venture inside to commit this, the most brutal of the killings. In order for this to be a domestic killing there has to have been another man in Whitechapel not associated with the Ripper murders, familiar to Kelly, who was willing not only to kill her, but then to sit and butcher her body afterwards for a considerable amount of time in a manner that made Jack the Ripper himself look somewhat tame. (I thought domestic killings were more likely to be a heated spur of the moment event?) In my opinion about as likely as a Guildhall graduate taking home an oscar.
J
|
Peter Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
I see similarities between Richard Gilchrists position and my own, for my grandfather also grew up in Whitechapel, and it was through him I first heard of the Ripper. He and everyone contempory was certain that JtR killed MJK. I am pretty sure that is the case also. I also disapprove of the habit of trying to identify individuals as JtR without sufficient evidence (case closed etc.), whether because they were in the vicinity or because they were famous. Expressing a suspicion in appropriate terms is another thing entirely.
But I am speechless at the idea that somehow putting forward an alternative view is an attack on British heritage, or something to do with the nationality of the theorist. These are views that are to me infamous and I am posting this just to make sure that no-one imagines that those views are anything to do with me. (Since I am arguing the case for MJK being a JtR victim on another thread, and I think I've previously mentioned my Grandad.)
Regards
Peter J. Tabord
|
K. Graham
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Whilst this topic is going, can someone clear something up for me PLEASE. I am interested to know what the confirmed description of the man Hutchinson saw is. On the 'victims' file the description is vastly different to that on the 'Witness' file. Which one do I follow? |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Richard Gilchrist,
Write in more anecdotes from your your grandpa.
This is important to get a feel of what was happening in the streets during those ripper times.This is more important than most posts. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 671
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
I saw this with Mr.Stan Russo. But, unlike you, Mr.Russo has put in the long hours of research, and a few people here have heartily recommended his book.
Aha, the plot sickens.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 672
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
K. Graham,
The description given in the "Witnesses" section is much closer to that which Hutchinson gave to the police, though the "red stone seal" was an embellishment Hutchinson gave in a later newspaper interview. Go with the description in the Winesses page.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on August 12, 2005)
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 640
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Steve - can you trace the IPs of 'Mr Gilchrist' and find out if he is one of our wonderful shared cranks using a fake ID? Not that anyone pays any attention to an aggressive ignorant xenophobe or anything...
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
c.d.,
Your scenario is an interesting one, and it is one that I have considered. Perhaps after her scream, he kills her quickly, leaves the room, and hides out for a while to see what happens. When nobody goes to investigate, he returns to her room. However, I am not sure that JtR would have actually done that, but then again, I am not really sure that JtR is the one who killed her. I realize that is for a different thread,so I won't go into too much about it here. I realize I don't have anything at the moment to back it up, but the mutilations done to poor Mary seems to me to be the work of a "copy cat" who went "overboard". JtR was never caught. Nobody knew who he was, or why he was killing these women. Over a month goes by and then Mary is murdered. However, her mutilations go way beyond anything that had happened up until that point. There are similarities between Mary's murder and the others, but there are also a lot of differences.
As far as the cry of "Oh, Murder", this could have put the killer in a very bad position. If the killer stayed in the room after Mary cried out, he would have had to have been very confident that nobody would respond to it.
You also mentioned in another post about the amount of danger that Jack would have been in while wandering the streets of Whitechapel. I have wondered how he would have behaved while walking through the streets. Did he lurk around in the shadows? Did he simply walk about confidence? Was he ever questioned? I realize there is nothing academic about my last questions, but I have wondered about it.
Sandy |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
It seems not everyone is so eager to dismiss Mr. Gilchrist. The slam against the Swedish gentleman aside (and he is a gentleman, generally) I think Mr. G's post made a damn good point. The local yokels had no problem believing an outsider could come in their midst and commit these crimes (for those familiar with the Met files, this was an opinion shared by someone at the Home Office) then why the heck should anyone believe John Douglas or the geographic profiling gurus? Those old East Enders are a valuable resource. It was their water; they swam in it. Take Mr. G's advice and listen to the contemporaries.
Now, as for Col. Blimp. Ahem. The Brits invented globalism, Mr. G. Remember Canada and Australia and India and Egypt? The Sun Never Set and all that imported jazz? You invented a world of Anglophiles, Mr. G, you and Mr. Dickens and Shakespeare and Doyle, so you can't blame the rest of the world for being interested now, can you? Peace, RP |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3902
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
R.J.
"then why the heck should anyone believe John Douglas or the geographic profiling gurus? Those old East Enders are a valuable resource. It was their water; they swam in it. Take Mr. G's advice and listen to the contemporaries."
I agree to some extent, but the problem is, that the ideas the alleged grandfather of Mr G presents doesn't seem to corroborate necessarily with the views from other contemporary police sources, who never seemed to rule out a local man. Beyond that, they couldn't agree on the suspects.
And that is mostly the problem with the contemporary sources; they did seldom agree with each other on anything - at least not more than modern ones.
Besides, I would warn against relying too much on contemporary voices in the Ripper case. Sure, they were there, but did they really know what they were talking about or knew what they were up against? I have serious doubts about that. Being there is not always good enough if your experience is poor and the detection methods are in its infancy. So 'being there' is over-rated.
As for Douglas & Co... well, point taken and I can agree with you on that one, and I would treat those kinds of sources with an equally amount of caution.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 641
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
RJ - I wasn't disputing our charming friend's suggestion; I was dismissing his personal opinions.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
I am struggling with the definition of a "copy cat" killer. I am aware of two different instances in which this term can be used. In the first case, it would describe someone who is mentally unbalanced. The descriptions of a killing that he reads or hears about trigger him to perform a similar type of killing and share in the publicity. The second case would involve someone who wants to commit murder and make it look like the work of another killer. I am assuming that when people on the boards use the term that they are referring to the second scenario. Is that correct? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
