| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 3:59 pm: |       |
Whenever we start talking about a technology solution we inevitably wistfully circle around to a time machine. What would we do? We would report to the scene of the crime about 45 minutes ahead of time and loiter, dressed in period costume waiting for a glimpse of JTR. Our curiosity satisfied we would wait around for a day or two and then go back (ahead?) to our own time. But alas, someone has reported seeing us to Abberline! If we tell him who JTR was/is? we change history and probably get in a big bunch of trouble when we get back to our own time. So we make up a fantastical description of a man in an afghan coat. George Hutchinson is one of US! A Ripperologist from the 23rd? 25th? century! Imagine the website being run by Spryder's great, great, great, great, etc. Imagine the excitement when GH makes (will make? made?) his long awaited report complete with a video from his minispycam! George knows (knew? will know?) the truth!!
Every once in a while I get a little loopy. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Diana
And imagine how many times GH might have had to go back and do it again, until he got it right.
E.g. the first time Kelly asks him for a loan, he replies : "I cannot. I have spent all my money going down to Alpha Centauri."
And he nearly gave himself away with that detailed description. Hundreds of years of evolution will have given him a photographic memory and the ability to see in the dark. He still hasn't put that right, of course. If he does go back and furnish a much vaguer, more realistic description, does Bob Hinton's book suddenly crumble to dust on my shelf?
I feel all insecure now!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:44 am: | |
Hi,
There are three explanations, for Hutchinsons overdone description.
In order of my preference.
A] He was telling the whole truth, the man he saw was overdressed, for he was to take part in the Lord mayors poccession, the following morning.
b] The police told him to elaborate his description, in order to give the possible murderer, a false impression, that the description was inaccurate.
c] the man was simply lying.
I would odds the three[ for those of you accustomed to odds]
A]1/2
B]6/4
c] 20/1
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
Richard, what are the odds for the time traveller?
PS When I was a kid, I believed there was a useless horse called Bar, which no one fancied betting on as it always had the longest odds.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 423
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
Hi Robert And Richard
Hi Richard-I can't understand why a man would be all decked out for the Lord Mayors procession at
2am. I believe Hutchinson knew that he had been spotted loitering about the scene of the crime by Sarah Lewis at 2:30am and felt he had to come up with some explanation.
I have never heard of a case wherein the witness was asked to come out with a false description to assuage the fears of the man he claims to have seen. In my experience the police are sometimes prone to ask leading questions of a witness in order to have the description fit a suspect they have already identified.
One thing that bothers me about Hutchinson and his remarkable identification is that the official account he gave to the police mentioned a slight moustache turned up at the ends, while later reports have him clearly describing a thick, heavy moustache.
Hutchinson stated clearly that he could identify the man upon seeing him again and the fact that Hutchinson described a harlequin figure would make him rather unmistakable.
I feel the simplist explanation was that Hutchinson was lying to; a) explain his having been present at the scene, or; b) to inject himself into the case in the Mathew Packer style.
Nevertheless it is worth noting that Sugden equivocated on Hutchinson's veracity and refused to dismiss the description out of hand. I would disagree with Sugden when he states that the descriptions matched sufficiently in consideration of the aforementioned moustache discrepancy. Further, Abberline appears to have placed some credence in the description and he was certainly not one to be duped by a transparent ruse.
Robert-Is it possible that Hutchinson could have meant to say he ventured to Proxima Centauri and spent his money there. This would have given him the chance to venture back to Dorset St. a little sooner. Perhaps this is a meaningless distinction, but it could provide a vital clue to the mystery of Hutchinson and his statement.
I will check with Rosey.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Gary, it's my belief that Hutchinson abducted the man and interrogated him on his home planet. By the time he returned him to his own time and place, the man's moustache had grown somewhat.
Hutchinson then became confused because he realised he'd forgotten his wife's 525th birthday.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 424
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
Hi Robert
There is certainly no doubt that no normal human being could have seen everything Hutchinson claims to have seen on poor MJK's last night on earth. On the other hand a visitor from another solar system...Well, the possibilities are endless. And, what of the fact that he chose to put in an appearance on a holiday such as the Lord Mayor's Day. Just another coincidence, I think not.
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 425
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
P.S.
Assistant Commissioner-?.I believe a well deserved three month holiday is in your future. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi Gary
Yes, I am due a long holiday. Before I go, and having regard to the interest attaching to the case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer. But little public benefit would result. I will therefore merely give his initials, with the middle one blanked out: A?R.
I would point out that the office of Assistant Commissioner entails very onerous duties - I now have to write several tomes of Biblical exegesis.
Sir Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:03 am: | |
Oh my God! It's all so clear to me now. An inadequate little man, ignored by the world, thrown on the scrapheap of life! Hitches a ride on George Hutchinson's time machine back to 19th Century London where he takes out his frustration on by ripping up the whores who flocked around his best friend even though he turned out to be gay anyway! Yes, A?R, Jack the Ripper was......
Andrew Ridgeley!!!! |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 427
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Alan
Robert- I believe you are doing the right thing by holding back the name of the killer. 'The traditions of your old department would suffer and, after all undiscovered murders are rare in London and and the Jack the Ripper murders were not within that category.'
There was no doubt whatever to the identity of the killer and in stating he was a Polish Jew, you would only be stating 'a definitely ascertained fact' After all you stopped the street murders after the double event by kindly warning prostitutes that 'the police would not protect them.' This forced the Ripper to kill indoors as poor Mary Jane Kelly found out.
Cheers to a job well done. 
Best of luck on your biblical analysis.
So Ridgeley was involved in the Ripper series as well. This serial killer stuff is easier to decipher than I once believed.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
You have never heard of a time ,when a witness was asked to lie about , or at least overdo a description.
Remember , the whitechapel police were desperate to get a result , and if they received imformation, that may result in a better chance of catching this maniac, they would use all the cunning tricks possible to hide any accurate description , for fear of the perpretrator, going to ground , or altering his attire.
I Cannot disclose further, for it is the climax of our book, but I believe on the day the body of kelly was found the police, thought they were on to a vital clue, and this would have been substanciated by Hutchinson.
Richard. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 430
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Based on my own experience with witness descriptions and the police I can say that all I have come across were leading questions being used to steer a witness toward a particular suspect.
I can't rule out the fact that a witness may have doctored his description to avoid encouraging a suspect to avoid altering his appearance.
I respect your desire to leave the climax of your book until the date of publication so I won't press you for details.
By the way good luck to you and Leanne with with your upcoming release.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Upon my word! Here am I doing my best to keep the name of the perpetrator a closely guarded secret -and there is Inspector Alan Sutherland Swanson Sharp revealing the truth to all and sundry.
You see what a Careless Whisper can do?
Sir Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 431
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:53 pm: | |
Hi Robert
When you finish your Biblical exegesis, I would like to read the marginalia Inspector Sharp inserts.
Of course, any reasonable person would expect you to take another three month vacation before you start work on the Biblical tomes. After all, your only human and the vacations would be regenerative.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | |
Indeed, Gary. Three months spent in a Bangkok nightclub would, I feel, be ideal preparation for the Biblical exegesis.
Robert |
Steven Tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Hutchinson's man sounds to me like Chapman. Right down to the Astrachan lined coat- Astrachan being a city in western Russia. (I don't know how common astrachan was in Victorian London)Also, the bushy mustache and foriegn appearance. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Hi steven,
True similar description, but two major flaws in Chapman, being the man seen with kelly.
Chapman was only twenty three years old at the time, and he was described as a small man.
Hutchinson describes him as mid thirties, and of average height.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:00 am: | |
G'day Richard,
What are the odds that someone would be dressed
at 2.am. for a day of celebration ahead?
Hey everyone: Richard's tip for last years Melbourne Cup ran last!....rub it in, yeah!!!! 
I'll give you all a clue: Something that George Hutchinson said about his suspect, caused me to look it up on the 'Victorian London Dictionary' website, (that has very little to do with Jack the Ripper).
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 2:07 am: | |
I for my part seriously doubt that the man described by Hutchinson ever existed, but regardless of which, as he probably was seen hanging out outside Kelly's room, I can think of three explanations for his behaviour:
1) He wanted to inject himself in the investigation like Packer
2) Hutchinson had something to do with the murder, and had to find some way to explain his whereabouts at the scene
3) Hutchinson actually saw Kelly with a customer and followed them, but hang around outside in order to wait for him and then rob him, and therefore wanted to find an alternative explanation to give to the police, since he had been spotted.
My bet is the last one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson 
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 198
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
As to your first option, unlike Packer, he would run the serious risk of becoming a suspect, certainly when his story would be a conspicuously strange one.
Regarding your third option, it wouldn’t have been a smart thing to describe Mary’s companion as being so obviously wealthy if he wanted to clear himself of any suspicion as a mugger.
Take care,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi Frank,
"Regarding your third option, it wouldn’t have been a smart thing to describe Mary’s companion as being so obviously wealthy if he wanted to clear himself of any suspicion as a mugger."
Fair enough and a good point. However, I don't think the "wealthy" description is that smart anyway -- regardless of which scenario, it is rather suspicious anyway, although Abberline didn't seem to think so at the time. I for my part can't rule out the third option. Maybe Hutchinson was just another ordinary East End ruffian and maybe he wasn't that smart? This was East End, and we know he needed money.
In any case, I can't see any valid motive for him being her killer anyway, so option number two is the one I think feel less tempting, although it naturally can't be totally ruled out.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2168
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Hi Glenn
As I see it, if GH wanted to mug the man, wouldn't he have done it as soon as he went down the alley to the court? Why hang around in the rain waiting for him to come out - especially as he'd be at least fourpence poorer?
PS What's with the Gustaf Lauritz?
Robert Charles Barbarossa Heliogabalus Linford |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Or He could have been waiting around for the astracan man to come out so he could open a can of whoopass on him because he wanted to wine and dine Mary Jane.... Just a bizarre thought.
Paul |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Paul, I think it's possible he was actually hoping the man would kill Kelly and emerge bloody from the court - allowing GH to collar him and collect the reward.
Robert |
