|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:26 pm: | 
|
Hi,
The residents of McCarthys rents were called upon usually by Mrs McCarthy and teenage son in order to receive payment for rent.
It is almost certain that around 1045am that morning [9th] Mrs mcCarthy and son were doing precisely that and Bowyer was sent to check on Kellys whereabouts as he had received concern from the residents that the curtains were drawn and she would not answer her door.
Mary Kelly had been behind with the rent for weeks and was still allowed to reside there, for what reason is unknown.
We all assume that this particular friday Mjk was on a desperate mission to obtain the rent, so what other desperate missions did she do for the past weeks even when Barnett was residing with her.
I believe in the case of Mary , McCarthy was lenient in any case he would have seen Barnett as the rent ower whilst he lived with her as she was without employment.
Lets face it he would have been reluctant to throw her out on the streets with the killer on the loose.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
G'day,
The room 13 Miller's Court was rented in Mary's name and I remember reading that McCarthy was eager to collect at least some of the rent arears, before Mary attended the 'Lord Mayors Day' event and spent it. I can't remember if that was someone's oppinion that I read here in 'Casebook', or whether they found proof of this fact.
LEANNE |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4281
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Harry,
"Hutchinson was a long time aquaintance of Kelly,and could fit all three possibilities outlined by leanne."
Yes, according to himself and his own dubious statement, but that is not confirmed by any other source. It is not an established fact.
In fact, not one single person in Mary Kelly's immediate circuit mentions him or confirms that he even knew her at all.
What kind of relation he really had with her or why he got himself involved we can't know - unless we want to believe his every word.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Several factors bolster the theory that Kelly's murderer (whoever he may have been) was either an acquaintance or a stranger who had implemented a plan to kill her several days before the actual event. The latter could easily have learned of her living arrangements through discreet surveilance. The fact that Hutchinson had almost certainly installed himself opposite Miller's Court at 2:30am on the morning of the murder suggests that he either knew Kelly or was stalking her.
The nature of Kelly's association with GH in no way negates Harry's obsrevation that the latter meets all of Leanne's 1)-3) criteria.
If Hutchinson was not the murderer, why did he peddle so great an untruth? (bearing in ming that Sarah Lewis' testimony effectively invalidates the "publicity seeker" scenario).
Best wishes,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 99
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
For the life of me, I can't see why GH would come forward with his story if he were Mary's killer. Maybe he was thinking that this would somehow deflect suspicion against him. But what suspicion? The police did not have a name to go along with Sarah Lewis' description and the description itself was so minimal that it could have fit damn near anybody. He had nothing to fear. If he were her killer, it would seem that coming forward with his story would be the last thing that he would want to do.
c.d. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 636
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I tend to believe GH's basic story but I also wonder if he wasn't just going for his 15 minutes of fame.
Stan |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 232
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:39 am: |
|
Leanne,
I didn't mention inquest reports,but I will dig out the revelant statement,and I did say that I only thought it was Prater,it may have been someone else.I do not know that Kelly was too tired,but I guess that anyone experiencing her kind of day would certainly be very tired much before 4am the following morning,and unlike Brushfield st,there is no evidence that eviction was contemplated that day.
Glen,
I tend to believe that sort of information was of a kind that could be checked,and Hutchinson well aware that it might be.Most of his other evidence however,concerning Kelly and the supposed companion,was on his word alone,there doesn't appear any way that can be checked.
As Ben has pointed out,Hutchinson is suspicious of the man's dress although also believing him to be local,but he is stuck with that description,as any variation might bring suspicion of another reason for being at Crossingham,s.It was his excuse for being there,and the only indication that Kelly did leave her room after midnight.Take her off the street,and in bed,then the manner of the killer's entry to her room,which was not forcibly entered,leaves little other than the hand through the window,and how many reasonable suspects would this entail. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 59
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Hi CD,
"The police did not have a name to go along with Sarah Lewis' description and the description itself was so minimal that it could have fit damn near anybody."
Hutchinson did not know this.
For all Hutchinson knew, Sarah Lewis may have been specifically requested to downplay the extent to which she observed the "loiterer". You'll notice there was no interjection to Lewis' suspect description at the inquest, no interuptions akin to: "What sort of age was this man?" "Have you seen him since?". All pertinent, germane questions, and yet nothing of the kind was raised at the inquest.
The fact that no such questions were asked does not mean that she could not provide answers to them. Indeed, it is entirely likely that she may have been *instructed* be be skant on detail.
Remember Joseph Lawende at the Eddowes inquest? He had previously furnished a description of the Mitre Square suspect to police, but when the very subject came up at the inquest, the jury "did not request it".
If the ripper had learned at the Eddows inquest that his description had been deliberately supressed, why should the same thing not happen again at the Kelly inquest?
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on November 29, 2005) |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 101
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
"The fact that no such questions were asked does not mean that she could not provide answers to them."
Sorry, buddy but there is no way that I can respond to that. I can't disprove a negative. That's like saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction only we can't find them. Can anyone "prove" that he didn't?
"Indeed, it is entirely likely that she may have been 'instructed' to be skant on detail."
Again, that is a conclusion with no evidence to support it so I can't argue against it.
c.d. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 102
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Assuming for the sake of argument that the police were able to track down GH from Mrs. Lewis' description (highly unlikely, in my opinion), what would come of it? Unless GH had a bloody knife and some organs on his person or in his lodgings, I think he was pretty much in the clear. If the police said "we have a witness that says you look like the man seen outside of MK's room", all he has to say is "no, it wasn't me or I got drunk and spent all night in a doorway." Where would the police go from there? Or he could even say "yes, I was there but I simply like to watch pretty women through their windows and that is all I did. Short of a confession, the police have no case. So, if he killed Mary, why come forward and take a chance of tripping yourself up in some way? To me, coming forward only makes sense if he had fears that he was seen and someone might think that he was the Ripper. In that case, he would want to deflect suspicion as soon as possible.
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4283
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
My personal bet is that Hutchinson was one of her occasional clients, and nothing else, which could also explain why he hang around outside Miller's Court that night.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Hey CD,
"That's like saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction only we can't find them."
I'm not with you here at all. You've made the assumption that Sarah Lewis' description could apply to anyone, thus rejecting the potentiality that she observed more than she divulged at the inquest.
"Again, that is a conclusion with no evidence to support it so I can't argue against it."
CD, you can't have read my post throroughly.  You bemoan the absence of "evidence" to reinforce my contention, but failed to notice that I did precisely that.
I'll try again: At the inquest into the murder of Kate Eddows, Joseph Lawende made it abundantly clear that he was able to furnish a description of Eddows' alleged assailant. He could easily have provided this at the inquest, but those presiding were prudent and foresighted enough to prevent Lawende from giving a detailed description at that time.
This would have unnerved the ripper.
As a consequence of the Edows inquest, he may have grown wary of the calculated trend of preventing detailed witness descriptions from appearing on the official public record.
Sarah Lewis may have given the totality of her observation of the "wideawake" man to the inquest, but in light of the Eddows inquest, would the ripper have been secure in the knowledge that a FULL description had been submitted?
I hardly think so.
For all JTR knew, Sarah Lewis' evidence may have been supressed just as Lawende's had been a month previously.
(Message edited by BenH on November 29, 2005)
(Message edited by BenH on November 29, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
"Assuming for the sake of argument that the police were able to track down GH from Mrs. Lewis' description (highly unlikely, in my opinion), what would come of it?...Where would the police go from there?"
I'll tell you precisely where the police would go from there: Joseph Lawende.
If Sarah Lewis had identified Hutchinson as the man loitering outside Crossigham's, it naturally follows that previous witnesses would be re-introduced.
If Joseph Lawende was able to confirm, from looking Huthinson over, that the latter was the man talking to Kate Eddows outside Mitre Square, the police would have established the identity of Jack the Ripper beyond any reasonable doubt.
If Schwarz, PC Smith, William Marshall at el were able to provide reinforcement of Lewis' identification, Hutchinson's goose would be well and truly cooked.
NOW do you see why it might have been in Hutchinson's best interest to pre-empt this irrefutably fatal possibility (for him) by coming forward? |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 104
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Hey Ben,
Your idea of introducing Lawende into the picture is a good one and one that I admit I had not considered. But here is the bottom line as I see it. Why didn't the police have Mrs. Lewis, Lawende, Levy et al identify GH. If coming forward pre-empted this irrefutably fatal possibility (as you say) then the police would be guilty of gross incompetence. Their line of thinking would have to run something like this "Well, I guess it might be a good idea to have some witnesses take a look at GH." "Ah, why bother, the guy came forward on his own, there is no way he could be the Ripper."
"The police would have established the identity of Jack the Ripper beyond any reasonable doubt."
Sorry brother, I have to completely disagree. First of all, their sightings, done late at night and from a distance would never stand up to a reasonable doubt test. Second of all, what crime would GH be quilty of? Talking to a prostitute is not a crime, neither is standing on the street outside somebody's room. Damn suspicious without a doubt but that is all. So, I stand by my original statement that if GH were the Ripper, it would have been extremely foolish for him to come forward. I look forward to your counter-argument.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
G'day,
How could Sarah Lewis have identified the man she glimpsed at while entering Miller's Court? If Hutchinson was in the public gallery at the inquest, I dont think he would have been wearing his "wide-awake".
'If Joseph Lawende was able to confirm, from looking Huthinson over, that the latter was the man talking to Kate Eddows outside Mitre Square, the police would have established the identity of Jack the Ripper beyond any reasonable doubt.'
Are you talking about the 'Mr Lewin [SIC]' that told the police that: "does not think he should know the man again."? Lewis and Lawende may have been asked if they were willing to pick someone from a line-up in the future, and declined.
'If Schwarz, PC Smith, William Marshall at el were able to provide reinforcement of Lewis' identification, Hutchinson's goose would be well and truly cooked.'
Schwartz saw a man with a "fair" complexion, "about 5ft 5ins." tall,
P.C. Smith saw a man with a "dark" complexion, "5ft 7ins" tall,
William Marshall: "Did not see the face" of the man that he saw Elizabeth Stide talking to.
'NOW do you see why it might have been in Hutchinson's best interest to pre-empt this irrefutably fatal possibility (for him) by coming forward?'
NO I dont see why it would have been in Hutchinson's best interest to pre-empt such a remote possibility that he would be identified from such vague and contradicting descriptions!!!!!
The risk of introducing his name to a case in which he was never before mentioned, is far greater than the risk of being picked from a line-up!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Leanne,
I agree with you entirely, no murderer would come forward, give his name and place himself at a murder location, unless he was completely insane.
Are we all suggesting that Jack was so paronoid, that he felt impelled to visit the police after every murder and invent a explanation why he was in the immediate area?..
George Hutchinson simply after being bullied by the people he relayed the sighting to over the weekend to report to the police simply did just that.
No interior motive, no alibi for a mate, nothing but the whole truth as witnessed by himself.
Richard.
. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
G'day Rich,
'Are we all suggesting that Jack was so paronoid, that he felt impelled to visit the police after every murder and invent a explanation why he was in the immediate area?..'
If the killer was so paronoid I feel he would most definately have come forward after 'the Double Event' to try to validate his presence if he was the man seen Lawende or P.C. Smith, (who both gave a more detailed descriptions of men seen with the victims just before their murders.)
'after being bullied by the people he relayed the sighting to over the weekend'
You are only relying on his own words here that he was urged to come forward, and I don't think he said 'bullied'. If he was bullied or threatened in any way, someone would have went with him to the police station, to make sure he did what he was instructed to do.
I know you believe and trust everything he said, and believe he was just being helpful. Why didn't he say why he waited so long, and what he would have done if Mary and client had have emerged? Why wasn't he asked? If he told Abberline during his interrigation, why didn't Abberline record it in the official files?
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 66
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
"Why didn't the police have Mrs. Lewis, Lawende, Levy et al identify GH."
Because they bought his silly story which describes, in essence, a pantomime-villain Jack the Ripper.
"Their line of thinking would have to run something like this "Well, I guess it might be a good idea to have some witnesses take a look at GH." "Ah, why bother, the guy came forward on his own, there is no way he could be the Ripper."
Well, precicely. That probably WAS their line of thinking. Clumsy, don't you think? And yet, tragically, legions of "ripperologists" continue to adhere to that very same flawed logic.
Talking to a prostitute is not a crime, neither is standing on the street outside somebody's room. Damn suspicious without a doubt but that is all.
Donald Swanson would be at odds with you on this point, CD. He asserts, among other things, that Anderson's witness "would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he didn’t wish to left on his mind".
If, as is generally accepted, Anderson's witness was one of the three Jewish witnesses of Mitre Square infamy, a positive identification would lead to the suspect receiving the death penalty.
The suspect observed at Mitre Square was almost certainly Jack the Ripper. Given the short interval of time which elapsed between the suspect sighting and the recovery of the body, any other alternative is rendered very unlikely - or so the police reasoned.
Thus, is it were established that George Hutchinson was that Mitre Square suspect, things would look pretty terminal for him.
Best wishes,
Ben |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
NO I dont see why it would have been in Hutchinson's best interest to pre-empt such a remote possibility that he would be identified from such vague and contradicting descriptions!!!!!
Gosh, Leanne, what a lot of exclamation marks!
WE, in 2005, are fully aware that the witness descriptions are "vague and contradicting", but the ripper didn't know that!
He would have known (if he had the sense to monitor the invesigative proceedures) that Joseph Lawende had provided the police with a description which was not requested at the inquest.
How disconcerting must that have been for the ripper?
A detailed description would have enabled him to plan his next move.
Quite simply, he did not know the extent to which he was observed by Lawende, and the same is true of Lewis. What if the same tactic had been employed during the Kelly inquest in regards to Sarah Lewis' evidence?
WE know the full extent of most witness descriptions. WE know how unreliable they are, BUT THE RIPPER DID NOT!!
Now do you get it? |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Well now I have to use the same logic that I took you to task for using, i.e., assuming facts not in evidence. Consider the mindset of Scotland Yard after the brutal murder of Mary Kelly. They were under tremendous pressure to solve this case and they must have been extremely frustrated at their inability to get a worthwhile lead. Enter our good friend GH who tells them that he had a connection to Mary and yes, that was him standing out in the street that night. Can we really believe that the police were so incredibly incompetent that they made no effort to check him out but simply gave him a pass because he had come forward of his own volition? I simply cannot buy that theory. I think there are things we don't know. The police were there and we were not (I hate it when people use that phrase but I think that in this instance it is warranted).
As to whether someone could be hanged on the basis of a witness identification in the absence of any other evidence, I don't know enough about English law to venture an opinion. Perhaps someone more versed in the law could let us know.
Please note that no exclamation points were used in this post! (well okay except for that last one).
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
G'day,
BEN: Are you saying that George Hutchinson took the gamble of hoping that the police wouldn't for a moment consider him a Ripper suspect and 'came forward on his own'? What a gamble! What a risk to take when all he had to worry about was a description of his headgear, given by one witness!
Then why wasn't the detailed description that he gave of the man he saw with Kelly more like the previously published description of suspects? i.e: "shabby genteel", "dark complexion", "aged around 40" or "aged about 28, height 5ft 7ins", "brown moustache"?
'"Their line of thinking would have to run something like this "Well, I guess it might be a good idea to have some witnesses take a look at GH." "Ah, why bother, the guy came forward on his own, there is no way he could be the Ripper." Which witnesses? Any of the one's who didn't get a good-enough look at him to pick him out?
'If, as is generally accepted, Anderson's witness was one of the three Jewish witnesses of Mitre Square infamy, a positive identification would lead to the suspect receiving the death penalty.' I can imagine: "We the jury sentence you to death by hanging because you were seen talking to a prostitute."
Hutchinson was not only taking a gamble that he wouldn't be suspected, but taking a gamble that he wouldn't be identified!
'Thus, is it were established that George Hutchinson was that Mitre Square suspect, things would look pretty terminal for him.'
So why take the risk?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 235
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Leanne,
Regarding the lighting in the court the night Kelly was killed.
According to Paul Harrison,author of 'Jack the Ripper.The murder solved',Elizabeth Prater gave evidence at Kelly's inquest that when she passed through the court near 1.30am,there was no light showing in Kelly's room,and the court was in total darkness.So obviously if that was correct,the lamp could not have been lit at that time,and was probably not lit at all that night.
I agree with Ben that Hutchinson would not know the amount or kind of information the police had concerning the person seen outside Crossingham's,and this would worry him.He could not be positive he would not at sometime in the future be asked to account for his presence there.
Hadn't he already admitted to aquaintances,before the Monday,that he was that person ,so guilty or not,it was in his interests to come forward officially and admit it.He really had no choice.
By the same token,if he had admitted to anyone,that he had been present at any of the previous murders,in whatever capacity,I am sure it would have leaked out,and he would have been forced into the limelight. The answer seems he didn't. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
G'day,
BEN: 'WE, in 2005, are fully aware that the witness descriptions are "vague and contradicting", but the ripper didn't know that!'
Do you think that Jack the Ripper couldn't read or find anyone to ask to read 'The Daily Telegraph' to him, that contained the testimonies of each victim's inquest?
Do you think that because of the fact that he couldn't read the description that Lawende gave to police in any newspaper, that he would risk walking into Bishopsgate Police Station on November 12? He must have hoped that the police accepted his description, wouldn't ask him too many questions, and hoped that they wouldn't ask him to stand in a line-up!
I like exclamation marks!!!!!...so hang me!!!!!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
You wrote:
I discount Mr Astrakhan, if he existed, being her killer as I think it unlikely he would have spent so long in her room before killing her. Way too risky for him to hang around in case someone came calling on Mary...
But you are talking about the time before he would have showed his hand and attacked. So anyone who came calling on Mary during that time would see her and a client, doing whatever they were doing before he decided the moment was right to take the plunge.
I agree with whoever it was who argued that Jack had been a dull boy during October, and would have been eager to play again by the second week of November. The chance to play indoors, with a younger model, was not one to squander, by pouncing prematurely (especially if a nosy Hutch might still be lurking), but one worth waiting for and savouring.
Outdoors, with just a few minutes to spare for the deed (not much longer than his victims would normally spend with a John), before a copper would approach, Jack had no choice but to attack almost immediately, with very little preamble. We don't know that that was how he preferred it, as opposed to how it had to be in those circumstances.
Once inside No.13, with Mary's approval to stay as long as the nice gentleman pleased, Jack might well have enjoyed ringing the changes.
Hi c.d,
To me, coming forward only makes sense if he had fears that he was seen and someone might think that he was the Ripper. In that case, he would want to deflect suspicion as soon as possible.
I agree with you. If Hutch was the ripper, and came forward out of bravado, thinking he was safe and sound while involving himself in the investigation, as some killers are known to do, I think we would have heard of him again - or at least more of his foul deeds - considering his bluff worked so well.
Hutch was only, at that stage, definitely connected in some way to the Kelly murder, because of his presence in the court the night before her body was discovered.
Why risk the police finding ways to connect him to previous ripper kilings, if he was indeed Jack? He would be aware that he could not provide a single alibi for any of them.
Something that must have an explanation is why Hutch took himself off after waiting in the court for 45 minutes (a long time if you're tired, cold, damp and maybe broke - I know the feeling when I have to wait just 20 minutes for my evening bus and haven't got enough for a black cab), but failed to check on Mary first.
My guess is that he must have been planning some sort of intercourse - social or otherwise - with one or both of the occupants, but gave up, assuming they were heavily into an all-night session.
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
I just reread the description of Sarah Lewis' testimony in the A-Z.
Two things struck me. Lewis said she saw the loiterer in Dorset St. but she also saw a man coming along with a woman. This was about 2:30. If this was Mary and Astrakhan man then Hutchinson's story is bolstered. The time difference (Hutch met Mary in Thrawl St. at about 2:00) can be partly accounted for by the fact that it took time for Hutch and Mary to have a conversation, for Mary to walk down the street and meet AM, for AM and Mary to come to an agreement, and for Mary and AM to walk back to her room. Lewis saw them as they were coming down Dorset Street toward Miller's Court. The rest of the discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that most people in Whitechapel could not afford watches and had to go by the sound effects made by various public clocks in towers.
Secondly, Lewis also says that the loiterer was actually in Dorset St. opposite to the entrance of the court. I think we need to investigate how busy Dorset St. was at night. We tend to think of it as deserted but I am not sure this is so. If I am JTR stalking MJK preparatory to killing her, would I stand for 45 minutes on a busy street where anybody could see me? Wouldn't I be safer in the court itself hiding behind something (water pump, outhouse, etc.)?
While musing on another thread I was lead to take a look at one of Jane Coram's excellent illustrations. It showed Mary leading Mr. Astrakhan into her room. Something struck me. All the other victims had been older, more destitute and further down the ladder than Mary. All the previous sightings of Jack had likewise been of someone lower on the "totem pole". It was as though for this killing, both victim and perpetrator had ascended the social ladder. Not very far I'll grant you, but definitely a step up. Could Jack have been someone who felt it necessary to always dress in a manner designed to disarm his prospective victim? If he had had on his astrakhan outfit for Polly, Annie, Liz, or Kathy they might have been just a tad suspicious. Why would someone like that be interested in the likes of them? But for Mary it would be believable.
I always wondered why Abberline believed Hutch, but if Lewis backed him up, and if the street was indeed busy with all sorts of people bustling around then maybe he was telling the truth. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
"Well now I have to use the same logic that I took you to task for using, i.e., assuming facts not in evidence."
What do you mean "not in evidence". I have provided "evidence" for every counter-argumument you have provided. Tangible evidence, based on primary sources. I've mentioned Lawende, Swanson, Anderson. Honestly, I have to wonder what you would personally classify as "evidence".
"Can we really believe that the police were so incredibly incompetent that they made no effort to check him out but simply gave him a pass because he had come forward of his own volition?"
Yes, I can believe that - and with relative ease too.
Did they check Schwarz, Cross, and Cadosch, amongst others? No. They made the same inexplicably clumsy assumption that modern-day researchers continue to make: "Well, he came forward of his own accord, and a sensible murderer wouldn't do that, so he CAN'T be a viable suspect." The only difference here is that this same palpably assurd premise was, in this instance, reinforced by the Astrakhan description.
And they bought it.
They accepted that the murderer must have quelled his urge to kill for well over an hour after meeting Jelly at 2:30am. They accepted that GH loitered outside the Court for as long as did, despite his assertion that "he did not consider him to be the murderer". They accepted the story that Hutchinson approached a policeman concerning the incident who did not which to persue the matter further. They accepted that both "bushy eyelashes" and "American cloth" are discernable in such poor lighting conditions. They accepted that Mr. Astrakhan and Hutchinson exchanged glances at ostensibly close quarters, and that the Astrkhan-bedecked ripper then proceeded to commit the unspeakable in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that a potential witness had "stooped down" to get a good look at him.
They accepted it. All of it. And here's the funny bit: the ripper was never caught. I don't know about anyone else here, but I see a distinct correlation between the two.
"As to whether someone could be hanged on the basis of a witness identification in the absence of any other evidence, I don't know enough about English law to venture an opinion. Perhaps someone more versed in the law could let us know"
I'm unfathomably disappointed that you didn't read my note about Donald Swanson, CD. Here I go again: "Donald Swanson would be at odds with you on this point, CD. He asserts, among other things, that Anderson's witness "would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he didn’t wish to left on his mind"..."
Look! See! There! Evidence apenty that, in all likelihood, a witness sighting (probably that of Mitre Square) WOULD lead to a hanging! It's all there, black and white. Clear as crystal.
Hi Leanne,
"Are you saying that George Hutchinson took the gamble of hoping that the police wouldn't for a moment consider him a Ripper suspect and 'came forward on his own'? What a gamble!"
More of gamble than allowing for the possibility of a chance encounter with Sarah Lewis (a STRONG chance, given the short distance between the Victoria Home and Millers Court) which would, inevitably, lead to some questions from Abberline?
"What a risk to take when all he had to worry about was a description of his headgear, given by one witness!"
Leanne, for the love of all mankind, I do wish you would grasp what I've been saying about Hutchinson's knowledge of the *****FULL****** extent of witness sightings. For all GH knew, Sarah Lewis may have recalled (and quietly revealed) a good deal MORE than just a widewake (see my Lawende-inquest example).
"I can imagine: We the jury sentence you to death by hanging because you were seen talking to a prostitute."
Twas not I that said it! Donald Swanson did - a primary source. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Leanne: "Can we really believe that the police were so incredibly incompetent that they made no effort to check him out but simply gave him a pass because he had come forward of his own volition?"
Ben: "Yes, I can believe that - and with relative ease too. "
And so can i. I completely agree with Ben here. GH couldn't know how much the police knew about the man hanging around Miller's Court and Crossingham's.
Although I believe that GH also delivered them a very exact description of a suspect in a desperate time of the investigation, also played a part in them buying his story.
We don't need to turn to Swanson or anyone else. We only have to look at Hutchinson's own story in order to see, that it does not add up on several points - it contains several strange inconsistencies and apparently the police never bothered to check them out. They bought his story because he delivered a suspect to them; even if they might have suspected that it was all bogus, they still had to take this suspect seriously enough, but it i also clear from Abberline's own comments that he believed Hutchinson, which one finds strange, to say the least, when reading the statement.
Mr Astrakhan Man most certainly never existed, but was a figment of GH:s imagination and probably created from the anti-Jewish illustrations in the tabloid papers.
It is a mistake to assume, that just because the police believed in someone, they did so because of having done all the correct inquieries. The police made several mistakes in the Ripper case, and especially regarding witnesses.
I don't think Hutchinson was Mary Kelly's killer, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
G'day,
GLENN: 'Leanne: "Can we really believe that the police were so incredibly incompetent...."
I didn't say that mate!
JANE: 'I discount Mr Astrakhan, if he existed, being her killer as I think it unlikely he would have spent so long in her room before killing her. Way too risky for him to hang around in case someone came calling on Mary...'
I don't think Mary's killer went to 13 Miller's Court specifically to kill her! He could have been reassured by her that no one else was invited to spend the night there, and he had no fear of Joseph Barnett popping in because.....he WAS Joseph Barnett!
Another possibility to consider is that he may have feared that Hutchinson was going to try and sneak a look inside.
Hutchinson may have been telling the truth when he said he had no fears that Astrachan was going to murder Mary Kelly but he still could have known who Jack the Ripper was. He just didn't recognize him as that person and didn't think he'd flip and kill the woman he loved.
BEN: 'Look! See! There! Evidence apenty that, in all likelihood, a witness sighting (probably that of Mitre Square) WOULD lead to a hanging! It's all there, black and white. Clear as crystal.'
I think Donald Swanson meant that a witness identifying a man as the one he saw with the deceased would have lead to further investigation that could have eventually lead to that person's execution.
'More of gamble than allowing for the possibility of a chance encounter with Sarah Lewis...'
If Hutchinson was that worried that Sarah Lewis would recognize him in court, why would it have been less of a gamble to chance that the police wouldn't call her back to look him over?
LEANNE |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 111
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
You appear to be very frustrated that I can't accept your arguments especially since they are supported by the "evidence." But if I am to agree with your version of events what I am supposed to do about the "evidence" that Patricia Cornwell uses to assert her conclusion that Walter Sickert was the Ripper? But wait, Sickert can't be the Ripper because James Kelly was the Ripper and there is "evidence" to support it. In fact, pretty much everybody and their brother has been named as the Ripper at one time or another and everybody who champions one suspect over another has "evidence" to support their argument. Jurors in a trial can disagree as to a defendant's guilt or innocence although they have all heard the same "evidence." You have made some good arguments and are obviously passionate about your positions which is great. I simply and respectfully disagree with some of them which is what makes these boards interesting.
As for Swanson, yes, I did read what you had to say. Swanson was simply expressing his "opinion." He was not a judge or a member of the judiciary system. I think Leanne is correct in saying that most likely he was saying that a witness identifying a man as the one he saw with the deceased would have led to further investigation. Additional and incriminating evidence could eventually lead to that person's execution.
c.d. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 1:44 am: |
|
Hi,
Again people are assumeing that Abbeline was an Idiot. They are assumeing that just because he seemed to believe GH that he dismissed him without questioning him. I do not know the exstent of Abberline's interview with GH. Does anyone? He found him crediable.
I do not know that the detectives dismissed the cry of murder that Sarah Lewis and Elisabeth Pratter heard. I have no idea what the detectives thought about Kelly's time of death. I know inspector Dew seemed to dismiss any witnesses claiming to have seen Kelly after Cox. Abbeline claimed that no one got a good look at the killer. He would seem to be dismissing Hutchinson later. Some detectives considered the posibility that the ripper had made his escape in Kelly's cloths based on Maxwell's testimoney. They seemed to consider all angles. To believe they just dismissed Hutchinson without questioning him is far fetched. I think if they made a mistake it was the fact that they believed Kelly was a ripper victim. Hutchinson and Barnett could have satisfied them that they were not the ripper, but both could have killed Kelly. I think Kelly was a ripper victim, and I think both Barnett and Hutchinson were not Jack the ripper.
Sarah Lewis could have said more about the man she saw. I do not believe she did, but then Hutchinson may have said more to convince the detectives that he was telling the truth. I have come to believe that Abberline believed George. However, I do not think that Abbeline thought that he saw Kelly's Killer. George may have been driven to come forward because he was there. He may have thought that someone could put him at the scene. He may have been scared. That does not make him a killer.
He could have been the Killer, but if we can figure that out the detectives who worked the field could figure it out. They would have to have been the keystone cops if they did not suspect Hutchinson. Why do so many people assume tht they are smarter then the detectives? How dumb do people think they were? Hutchinson was a man who puts himself at the crime scene. Who admitts to talking to the victim. he admitts to hanging around about the time of the murder. Does anyone honestly believe that they did not consider Hutchinson a suspect?
I doubt they could get a death sentence based on the eyewitness testimoney of someone who claimed to have saw a man talking to a prostitute. or they saw man hanging around on the street. Donald Swanson's statement that his witness did not come forward because he did not want to be responsible for the hanging of the suspect. Is sweeping. No one wants to be responsble for the death of anyone. Jurys struggle with that all the time. Defence lawers play on that very fear. What if I am wrong. What if he is inocent. There is no guarantee that the suspect that Swanson claimed was identified by a witness would have been hung. Maybe lynched. Anything short of catching the ripper in the act of murder would make it hard to get a conviction. The atmaspere at the time may have been a lynching one. Anyone going to trial may have been railroaded. Maybe this fear drove Hutchinson. However, there is no evidence that the police had enough evidence to take Hutchinson to trial. They took great care of the people that they brought in for questioning because of the chance of an angry mob taking action.
Talking to Kelly that night or if anyone saw him Standing outside would be flimsy evidence. they had nothing on Hutchinson. He had nothing to worry about even if Lewis had positively identified him as the man she saw.
Hutchinson may have been driven by fear. He may have feared being identified by Lewis. Who knows? However, there were alot of witnesses who claimed to have seen a man with the victims, and the ripper never was driven to come forward out of fear. Maybe Hutchinson was not Jack. Maybe he only killed Kelly.
I believe he was questioned, and the detectives had no reason to suspect him. I do not rule out Hutchinson. I do not rule out Barnett. You have to assume that they both were questioned, and not suspected. If either men were indeed the ripper, or either man killed Kelly. then it is sad that they got away.
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Hi Diane,
Good for you, Abberline did believe Hutchinson. Some weight should be given to this fact.
I still think that people give Mary to much credit. I do not think it mattered to her how a man was dressed. To understand why it was easy for the ripper to attack, you have to understand his victims. Prostitutes have been a target since prostitutions has existed. The women are desperate, and they are looking to take advantage of any man that they think they can. Kelly was no different. If you believe Cox then Kelly had picked up a man earlier who was not so fancy. If Hutchinson is telling the truth then Kelly had asked him for money before meeting Mr. Astrakhan.
I like your question. Did he dress in order to disarm his victims. I do not think he would have had to do that. I do not think his victims cared how he was dressed. However, he may have dressed down in order to fit in the area he was stalking. It could have been a fatal mistake if he did not dress down when he picked up Kelly. If indeed Mr. Astrakhan was the ripper. I can see him dressing poorly in order not draw suspicion from others who may be out and about that night. The woman would have gone off with him any way. They may have asked for more money. A bigger pay day from a shiny man, but I do not think that the woman would refuse anyone unless he was a drooling idiot.
When suggesting that Mr. Astrakhan dressed nicely because Mary was a younger, and more atractive women. You would be suggesting that he knew he would be picking up Mary that night. Wow, we would be talking about a ripper who stalked his victims. A man who picked his victims before he went out. That is a whole new ball of wax. Maybe, but wow that would be a big twist.
The ripper took risk. He killed women in the street. He obviously was ammuned. The woman are trying to take advantage. They want the men to feel comfortable. All she would have had to say is I have my own room. I will make you comfortable. Come inside and get warm. I do not think he would have waited around to make sure nobody was going to come by before he killed her. He probably felt safer there then any other killing ground. That is why I am confused. I do not think that Cox's suspect was the ripper. Hutchinson's suspect could have been the ripper, but you have to explain what he was doing with Kelly for an hour before he killed her. A posible explanation is that the cry of murder did not come from Kelly, and she was killed shortly after entering her room with Hutchinson's suspect. I still have a problem with the fact that the ripper let Kelly get undressed. I am assumeing that he would not have spent much time talking with his victim. I could be wrong.
I think she went back out after hutchinson had left, and met her attacker. I agree that if Hutchinson was hanging around then he wanted something. I think he was lieing when he said that he hung around for awile. He probably was trying to sound protective. Mary was a friend. I was worried. I waited afround until it was obvious she was not comming out. He may have felt guilty that he did not give Kelly money, or that he should have waited to make sure she was alright. Detectives can be very leading and intimedating when questioning a witness. Make no mistake about the fact that if they were any kind of detectives. they would have question Hutchinson as a suspect not a witness.
A few of mistakes I feel people make are they over estimate the charactor of the victims. They under estimate the intelegence of the detectives, and they fish for suspects.
Your friend, Brad |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
When people say that Abberline apparently believed Hutchinson's story, what exactly does that mean? Did it have to be an all or nothing proposition? Maybe there were elements of his story that Abberline believed and maybe there were other elements that Abberline dismissed or took with a large grain of salt. I also think it is important to remember that Abberline probably did not act alone in this but had input from others on the force as well. If he took a giant naive pill then others must have swallowed it as well.
c.d. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 238
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:58 am: |
|
Aberline's belief was penned in a report he submitted to superiors the same evening he interviewed Hutchinson.
To gain someidea of what the situation was up untill Hutchinson came on the scene,and how much he may have changed it,consider the evidence given at the inquest,and how it might have influenced police thinking.
There are I believe four important points to consider.
(1)Kelly entered her room in company of a male about midnight.She sang and was noisy for about one hour.
(2)A male person was seen standing opposite the court about 2.30am.
(3)A cry of 'Oh murder!' was heard by two persons,about 4am.,and seemed to come from the direction of Kelly's room.
(4)Kelly was reported as having been seen about 8am the day she was killed.
This was the information to hand before Hutchinson came to tell his tale. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
G'day,
Maybe it means that Abberline believed he was telling the truth, because he couldn't 'break' the man from his story, but it's obvious he didn't ask him enough questions, (like what would he have done if one or both came out again).
Then again, perhaps the 'east End street wise' Abberline knew what his intentions were, and just never recorded it the official files.
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on December 03, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
CD, my apologies for the "frustrated" tone and tenor of my previous posts. Of course I do not expect blind adherence to any evidence-based theory I put forward, but on the other hand, if the evidence I provide cannot be satisfactorily refuted...
"But if I am to agree with your version of events what I am supposed to do about the "evidence" that Patricia Cornwell uses to assert her conclusion that Walter Sickert was the Ripper?"
Simple. You compare and contrast.
You ask of yourself: is Patricia Cornwell's "evidence" as plentiful and compelling as my theories relating to GH, which are also bolstered by primary sources? You should then reach conclusions accordingly, discarding the weaker case, and then compare the stronger case with, say, the case for George Chapman. (Etc etc).
"Swanson was simply expressing his "opinion.".."
You're looking for things that just aren't there.
Objective scrutiny of the missive will clearly reveal that NOWHERE does Swanson suggest that his statement, pertaining to the subject witness identifications, was based only on "opinion".
No "in my opinion" from Mr. Swanson.
No "There is every likelihood that" from him either.
Just an ironclad pronouncement, and one that can ONLY have been based on fact. Do we imagine that such an individual would be so ill-guarded with his terminolgy as to allow any reader to confound opinion with fact?
"I think Leanne is correct in saying that most likely he was saying that a witness identifying a man as the one he saw with the deceased would have led to further investigation."
No, it is "most likely" that he meant precisly what he wrote.
Hi CB,
"Why do so many people assume tht they are smarter then the detectives? How dumb do people think they were?"
In this instance, very VERY dumb. Profoundly so.
Let's analyse the primary sources (annoying, aren't they? ). Abberline was notoriously "of the opinion" that Hutchinson's statement was true. Not, "he MUST be telling the truth BECAUSE". He merely "opined" in regards to the veracity of GH's statement.
If Abberline was in posession of irrefutable proof of GH's innocence (in the form of an alibi for a previous murder, perhaps) he would certainly have divulged it. It would be in the interest of Hutchinson's personal safety that any such "proof" be publically revealed, but Abberline did no such thing. Two natrual inferences can be drawn from this; either Abberline had a callous disregard for the safety of witnesses, and was oblivious to the fear-cazed ripper-hunting mob, OR he had NO such proof of Huthinson's innocence.
The latter option being the more likely, let us explore WHY Abberline arrived at the "opinion" he did.
In the aftermath of the Kelly inquest, Sarah Lewis' wideawake-wearing loitering must have become the object of considerable suspicion - suspicion that was suddenly and inexplicably quelled upon the late arrival of George Hutchinson. Hutch then says, in effect:
"The wideawake man was me (see illustration depicting GH) and the reason I was there...blah blah blah"
Thus, Abberline would have cleared the wideawake man on the grounds that the widewake man was George Hutchinson, and then cleared Hutchinson on the grounds that he and Lewis "corroborate eathother". Interesting logic.
Sound familiar? |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
You are on top of things I just posted to CD. Given the facts that you laid out, and I was Abberline, I would believe that Kelly was killed sometime after 2.30am I would interagate the crap out of Hutch. I think he did. I think he believed him. I would believe the cry of murder came from Kelly. I would place the time of death sometime near four. I might reconsider given the time between George saw Kelly, and the cry of murder was heard if George had seen the ripper at all. I would discount Maxwell sighting based on my believe that the cry of murder came from Kelly, and the coronor's report. He stated that there was no way that Kelly could have been alive after eight in the morning.
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
Hi all'
I am sorry for flooding this thread with alot of post. I feel obligated to respond to anyone who responds to one of my post. I enjoy all input good or bad. All responces are greatly appreciated.
Hi Ben,
I understand your point of view. The first man I would suspect of the Kelly murder would be George Hutchinson. Sarah Lewis corroborating Hutchinson's story is brilliant Logic. I know what you mean. However, I do not think that Abberline dismissed him as a suspect based on Sarah Lewis's testimony. I have always thought that Lewis's comments corroborated that George was at the scene, and that he saw a man with Kelly. You are clever tho. You are not a lawyer by any chance.
Abberline wrote to his people that he thought Hutchinson was reliable. If he had any doubts about Hutchinson he probably would have informed them.
Hutchinson was cleared in the press. The thing the press wrote over and over again was that the police thought George Hutchinson was reliable. Abberline did not have to make a public statement. The press was doing it for him.
Malta Joe mention something to the evect that the police leaked that George would be escorted by two police men to search for the man he saw. Malta ask me what I thought. I thought that it was strange that the police would announce that they would be walking around the city with Hutchinson looking for the ripper. Why would they alert him? I thought maybe they wanted to flush the fiend out. Make him make a move. However now I am thinking maybe this was there way of giving George backing.
Abberline could have made a statement that Hutchinson had an alibi for the other ripper murders, but I would think that he would lay more suspicion on George by mentioning Jack and George in the same breath. However, he did not need to. By bringing him out. Leaking his name to the press. Letting the press give him respectability. The police assured his safety.
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi c.d.
Abberline reported that he thought Hutchinson was a reliable witness. I do not think it was an all or nothing proposition. A lot of witnesses get confused. get nervous. I would alow for a few errors in someone's story.
We do not have the advantage of asking the witness questions. Abberline did. I find it hard to say that George was lieing when I did not have the chance to look him in the eyes. Abberline did.
I think what Abberline would have taken away was that Hutchinson Knew Kelly. Hutchinson saw Kelly alive after Cox saw her enter the room with a man. This tells him that most likely the man saw with Cox was not the ripper. I am not sure what he thought about the description that Hutchinson gave. He probably noted the description. However later he would claim that no one got a good look at the ripper. You seem real bright c.d. you tell me what that means. 1. He did not think that the man George saw was the ripper. Maybe he believed the cry of murder came from Kelly sometime close to four, and he assumed that Kelly had met someone else later on that night. 2. Sometime after Hutch came forward Abberline realised that George was not a reliable source, and he discounted his story. 3. He believed that George had seen the ripper, but he did not want to stir up that kettle of fish in the papers.
I will ask you another question. Do you believe that the cry of murder came from Kelly? I know that it was claimed that the cry of murder was common to hear at night How common was common. Was a cry heard every night? Once a week? Once every two weeks? Twice a month? How often did such cries occur? I know you do not know the answer, but would you not be courious if you were a detective. It is common for me to hear car horns and dogs barking at night but it has been real quiet the last month. If I was working the Kelly murder, and two woman told me they heard a cry of murder. one of the women claiming the cry sounded like it came from right outside. I would at least consider the cry of murder came form Kelly. Would you?
Your friend, Brad |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 113
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Sorry, but I am pressed for time here so I will simply respond to the comment made by Swanson. You are right in saying that Swanson's words stand by themselves and there is no reason for me to doubt that he was sincere in his belief. The problem that I have is that to me his statement is incorrect. Since I don't think that Swanson was stupid or foolish, I have to believe that his statement is taken out of context. If we are to take his statement literally, then he is saying that an English jury would convict a man and sentence him to hang based on the testimony of a witness who only saw the defendant talking to a prostitute who was later found dead. The witness would further testify that it was dark, and that he saw the defendant for only a short time and from a distance. The witness may or may not have been drinking that night (I can't recall). He also would have to explain to the court that he had previously told the police that he would not be able to recognize the defendant again. It is certainly possible that this could result in a guily verdict but that seems extrememly improbable. Since Swanson would know this and was no fool, it seems much more likely that he was "implying" that anyone identified by a witness as the man seen talking to a murder victim right before her death would have some serious explaining to do. Now that the police had a major suspect in custody, further questioning and investigation would then give them enough evidence to have the man hanged.
c.d. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 114
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Hi Brad,
Good to hear from you. I remember your contributions to the Tumblety discussion and they were always worthwhile.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that we don't have the advantage of asking the witness questions or looking him in the eye but that Abberline did. I think Abberline had two tasks before him. First to determine if GH was somehow involved in Mary's death and second to determine if GH's description could possibly lead them to the Ripper. This is a tough one but I think he satisfied himself that GH was not the Ripper or involved in any way in Mary's death. GH's description of the Ashtrakan man is a harder nut to crack. It certainly sounds like it was concocted to us today. Abberline might have been so desperate for a lead that if he concluded that GH did see somebody he might have allowed for some fabrication in the story. As you said, it didn't have to be all or nothing. I still think Abberline would have discussed GH's story with others.
We know that a cry of Oh Murder was heard but there is an Oh Murder uttered as a result of a bad dream or some other reason and then there is a cry of OH MURDER!!!!!!!! I think the cry came from Mary but if it really was a cry for help I think it would have been uttered the latter way.
P.S. Thanks for the nice compliment. I shall try to live up to it.
c.d. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
No "in my opinion" from Mr. Swanson.
No "There is every likelihood that" from him either.
Just an ironclad pronouncement, and one that can ONLY have been based on fact. Do we imagine that such an individual would be so ill-guarded with his terminolgy as to allow any reader to confound opinion with fact?
Well, even some of the most respected of today's ripperologists have, on occasion, made their opinions appear like statements of fact.
You wrote that Swanson ...asserts, among other things, that Anderson's witness "would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he didn’t wish to left on his mind" [sic].
But this had to be an opinion, whatever it was based on, since it would not have been up to Swanson to deliver a guilty verdict; that would have been a decision for a jury to make - and even that is assuming Anderson's suspect wasn't found insane and unfit to plead.
In fact, if you explore Swanson's statement further, it becomes clear that he is expressing the fear of Anderson's witness that a man would hang because of his testimony. That fear is in itself an opinion, and not necessarily a justified or informed one, because the witness would have even less idea than Swanson what the end result would be if he went ahead and testified.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hey Brad,
"You are clever tho. You are not a lawyer by any chance."
I'm an actor, although I guess both professions entail an element of performing.
"I find it hard to say that George was lieing when I did not have the chance to look him in the eyes."
That is true, but unfortunately, eye-scrutiny does not make for an accurate lie detector test. Huthinshon would have had ample time to prepare his yarn, and may have been thoroughly convincing.
"This tells him that most likely the man saw with Cox was not the ripper."
Yes, but more importantly, Abberline would have established (in his own mind, at least) that Sarah Lewis' wideawake man was not the ripper. The fact that suspicion was also deflected away from blotchy face appears to have been little more than an uninitentional by-product of Hutchinson's statement.
Before Hutchinson's account arrived, the two chief objects of suspicion must have been Blotchy face and Wideawake man, but Hutchinson was only interested in clearing ONE of them - himself.
Hi c.d.,
"If we are to take his statement literally, then he is saying that an English jury would convict a man and sentence him to hang based on the testimony of a witness who only saw the defendant talking to a prostitute who was later found dead."
Precisely, she was "later" found dead, but how much later? This is at the crux of the matter. Philip Sudgen makes what strikes me as an excellent case for Joseph lawende having been Anderson's witness, and I second and endorse his view. That being the case (which is, of course, open to dispute) let's examine the time frame of the Mitre Square murder:
At c. 1:34am Joseph Lawende and chums observe Eddows and a shabbily-dressed man at the corner of Duke St and Church Passage, leading to Mitre Square.
Jump to 1:40am: PC Harvey went down Duke St and into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq. He did not look into the square and neither saw nor heard anything.
1.44am: PC Watkins discovers body.
Thus, it is logical to surmise that the murder was committed sometime between 1:34 and 1:40 and further, that the darkness of the Mitre Square's South-West corner prevented PC Harvey from noticing the body. Interentially, the murder MUST have been committed less than six minutes after the Lawende sighting. Is it likely, therefore, that Eddowes bade farewell to Lawende's suspect before picking up Jack the Ripper just minutes afterwards?
Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely, don't you think?
NOW we begin to understand Swanson's statement. The man Lawende saw was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, and thus, any positive identification of JTR would of course lead to a hanging.
"He also would have to explain to the court that he had previously told the police that he would not be able to recognize the defendant again"
But we *know* that the totality of the witness' description, and by extension, the totality of his evidence, was supressed at the inquest. NOW we know that Lawende was able to deserve a red neckerchief, a pepper and salt "loose fitting" coat, a fair complexion and a fair moustache.
Not a bad description at all. Very detailed in fact, but we here nothing of this at the inquest.
Hi Caz,
"Well, even some of the most respected of today's ripperologists have, on occasion, made their opinions appear like statements of fact."
Yes, but they would never claim to be as conversant with the complexities of Victorian legal proceedure as Swanson inevitably would have been.
"But this had to be an opinion, whatever it was based on, since it would not have been up to Swanson to deliver a guilty verdict; that would have been a decision for a jury to make"
Certainly, Swanson can only offer opinion as to whether ot not a jury would return a guilty verdict, but he was well aware that this was not his department. He wanted the reader to be left in little doubt as to what would happen to the suspect *IF* a guilty verdict was returned.
If we consider the implications of the Lawende sighting, as alluded to above (or even Schwarz' for that matter), it isn't difficult to understand why they believed "talking to a prostiute" to be a hanging offense.
Best Regards,
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on December 06, 2005) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
Hi c.d.
Not much to say about your last post. I agree with every word. I do not believe we disagree about much on this point.
Tumblety threads are always interesting. I will miss Malta Joe, but he is promising to post something good this month regarding Tumblety.
We agree the cry of murder came from Kelly. I wonder just how loud the cry was. If you read Sarah Lewis's tesimoney she says. " I heard a female's voice shouting murder loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at are door." Elizabeth Pratter claimed the cry was faint, but she had been sleeping. Lewis had been awake before she heard the cry. I think the cry of murder may have been a little louder then you suggest. However, we both agree that the cry came from Kelly, so we are not debating much are we.
Thanks for your responce.
Your friend, Brad |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 663
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Eddowes could have easily told Mr. Shabby to hit the bricks and met the real killer within six minutes. In fact, that would have been enough time to meet several different men.
Stan |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 72
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
I find that very difficult to accept, Stanley.
We can deduce from PC Harvey's evidence that the murder must have been committed SOME time before 1.44am. It may have happened 30 seconds before the arrival of Harvey, but given that he was not attracted to the square by any conversation or movement of any kind, it is likely that the grisly deed was performed closer to 1.34am, when Eddowes was last sighted.
Six minutes is the absolute maximum time available for a client switch between the Lawende sighting and Harvey's arrival, and given Eddowes' obvious ease with the stranger (hand on chest), the possibility of her securing another man before 1.44am is an extremely remote one. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 665
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Six minutes is a lot of time for a prostitute but who can say what happened. They can make the most of the clock even getting down into the fractions of a minute.
Stan |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 73
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
A vaild point, but as I hope I demonstrated, it is extremely unlikely that the interval of time between the Lawende sighting and the actual murder was *as much* as six minutes.
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Here is an interesting question. Since forensic science as it existed in Jack's day was pretty crude compared to today, how much weight was given to a doctor's testimony regarding time of death? It seems like so many murder cases turn on the time of death of the victim. Was it explained to juries that these were simply rough estimates or was it taken as gospel since the testimony was provided by a doctor?
c.d. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Well, Coronor Baxter in Chapman's inquest pretty much completely ignored what the doctor said and came up with his own time of death to try to fit with the alleged witness statements. The police stuck with what the doctor said, though. So obviously it depended upon the person.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:22 am: |
|
HI all,
The Eddowes murder to me is the most interesting of the series. The Kelly murder gets all the hype, but if everyone is correct, then Lawende was looking at Jack the ripper.
A timeline is a difficult thing to trust, because witness are often wrong about the times they claim. Here are some Important times,
1. Eddowes is alive at 1:00am
2. Eddowes is dead at 1:44am
3. The Coronor claims that the body could not have been there for over forty miniutes. He is very adimit about that fact.
4. The coronor claims to have arrived at twenty past two.
5. Watkins claimed to have walked through the square at 1:30 There was no body.
6. He claims his beat takes 12 to 14 miniutes to walk.
7. Lawende claims to have left the club at halve past one, and he too is very adimit about this fact.
8. Lawende claims to have seen Eddowes talking to a man around 1:35
Too me those are the important times. The coronor is the Key. Like c.d. I wonder how accurate he was. I doubt that Doctors were as incompetant as some on the Kelly threads would have you believe. The coronor was very infactic that the body could not have been there for more then 40 miniutes. Faced with this information I am going to say he is correct. I have no reason to doubt that he arrived on the scene at 2:20am
We know the time that Eddowes was released from jail is correct.
We know the time that the body was found is correct.
The times Watkins give are important. We know he discoverd the body when he said. I believe him when he claimed his beat took between 12 and 14 miniutes to walk. He would have figured that out the first time he walked his beat. I am not sure that he walked through the square at 1:30 I feel this is the one time that watkins gives that I might question. However, I have no reason to doubt him, and the coronor would seem to back him up that Eddowes had not yet been attacked.
If you believe the times are correct then the time of Death was between 1:30 and 144am The ripper had 14 miniutes to kill and then make good his escape. I believe this to be true.
Joeseph Lawende, his times are important, because if he is accurate about his times, and he did see Kate, then there can be no doubt that he saw Jack the ripper.
The clock is ticking. We know that Eddowes could not have been killed before 1:30am Probably later then that, if you believe Watkins. If Lawende saw the pair together at the time he said, then the ripper has nine miniutes. I doubt that anyone else could have met her and killed her. then made good his escape before watkins arrived.
What if Lawende was wrong about his times? He had friends with him who could back him up about the time. Just 10 miniutes would make a big difference. However, if you believe Watkins then she was not aready dead, and it would make sence that she would be standing were he said.
What if Lawende was wrong about haveing seen Eddowes? He only identified her by clothing. He claimed he could not get a good look at her. Us Tumblety supporters probably should hang are hates here.
If I have to give my opinion, I would say that yes Lawende saw Kate and, yes he saw Jack the ripper. This bothers me because I have thought Tumblety to have been the ripper, and in no way does Tumblety match Lawende's discription.
I supose that someone could have attacked her after she left Lawende's suspect, but I doubt that the man would have enough time to mutilate the body before Watkins arrived.
I supose that Lawende could have been wrong about seeing Eddowes, and at the very moment that he was walking by the women he thought was Kate, the real Kate was getting murdered.
Maybe Lawende was just a few miniutes off about his time, and Eddowes had time to meet someone else after she left the man that Lawende saw her with.
I hate Timelines and the Eddowes timeline is real tight. It would not surprise me if someone is wrong about a time. Maybe the coronor.
At the inquest Lawende is asked not to give a discription. I wonder why. What could he have said that they did not want known?
When you look at the discription that Schwartz gives and compare to the Lawende's discription they are quite similiar. Both say, 30 years of age, Fair complexion, brown mustache, dark trousers, peaked cap. one man says salt and peper coat. one man claims dark coat. One witness says 5'5 and the other claims 5'7 The discriptions are close. I wonder what Lawende could have said?
However, it is fair to point out that Lawende testified that he would not know the ripper if he saw him again.
Your friend, Brad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
