Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 31 minutes ago.
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - by Pcdunn 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Harry D 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by ChrisGeorge 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (27 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (19 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (12 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:04 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Jon,
Fine,but you have also been challenged to provide evidence Hutchinson told the truth,and you hav'nt done so.
I produced Sarah Lewis who claimed to see not only a lurker (Hutch?), but a man & woman walk up the passage - just as Hutch claimed. The female was "the worse for drink" - just like Hutch claimed. Apparently the woman was hatless, just as Mary Cox claimed.
In a court of law that would be sufficient to verify at least that part of his story.
Maybe you have not read this, but that is as near as proof as we are likely to get. Ignoring Lewis does not make her go away.

The trip to Romford is not directly impact the murder story, even if he didn't go there this does not mean he wasn't in Dorset St. as he claimed.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 05-17-2017, 01:34 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Jon,
Are you arguing that because two persons at different times saw a hatless female,that is evidence that it must have been the same female?

Lewis does not report seeing a female present in or around the court,about 2.30,which is the time she claims she saw a male standing outside Crossinghams.

Hutchinson does not report a female at that time,and I have never claimed Hutchinson lied about being there.

That being so,one truth does not support all of his claims be true.
If the trip to Romford is not important,why was it included?.It had a meaning to Hutchinson apparently.To Badham? to Aberline?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 05-17-2017, 10:14 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
What I do not get is your preoccupation with whether Hutchinson's story was verified.
You maintain he could have lied. Fine, but I challenged all comers on Casebook to come up with anything that we can honestly say Hutchinson lied about.

To date, no-one has come up with anything - the belief he lied is fantasy.

A few even went so far as to claim it was 'proven' Hutchinson lied, but when challenged all voices went quiet, why - because it is rubbish.
There is absolutely no indication Hutchinson lied about anything, so why do you keep flogging a dead horse?
Jon,

Don't be ridiculous, there is no way to prove anything about Hutchinsons story now, as there is no way to disprove any of it. What we do know is that he claimed to somewhere at a time when another witness saw someone, he came forward on Monday night...4 days after the fact...and that he offered up what can only be described as incredibly specific details about the mans appearance. We also know his story is later discredited.

The safe side of that bet is that some or all of his story was invalid.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 05-17-2017, 04:48 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Jon,
Are you arguing that because two persons at different times saw a hatless female,that is evidence that it must have been the same female?

Lewis does not report seeing a female present in or around the court,about 2.30,which is the time she claims she saw a male standing outside Crossinghams.

Hutchinson does not report a female at that time,and I have never claimed Hutchinson lied about being there.

That being so,one truth does not support all of his claims be true.
If the trip to Romford is not important,why was it included?.It had a meaning to Hutchinson apparently.To Badham? to Aberline?
I already clarified what the three points were, none of which were reflected in what you said above.

Had we read in the press that another resident of the Vic. Home told a reporter that Hutchinson was here all Thursday (ie, he never went to Romford), you and a few others would have been shouting it from the roof tops.
There wouldn't be any claims of 'press tittle-tattle', or 'untrustworthy uncorroborated press reports', oh no, you and others would be claiming it is proven he lied.

Here, the shoe is on the other foot, Lewis saw what Hutchinson saw, that is corroboration.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 05-17-2017, 04:58 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Jon,

Don't be ridiculous, there is no way to prove anything about Hutchinsons story now, as there is no way to disprove any of it. What we do know is that he claimed to somewhere at a time when another witness saw someone, he came forward on Monday night...4 days after the fact...and that he offered up what can only be described as incredibly specific details about the mans appearance. We also know his story is later discredited.
To quote someone recently..."Don't be ridiculous"

We do not KNOW that the story was later discredited.
(How many times do we have to go over this?)
Try following the facts Michael, leave emotion aside.

We do KNOW the Star published false and inflammatory stories from time to time THAT has been proven.
The Star, being a new newspaper, was intent on making provocative claims to get sales.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 05-17-2017, 06:26 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Jon,
Hutchinson,s version gives a time of about 2.15,when Kelly and the male,mrA,enters the passage leading to the court and Kelly's room.

Sarah Lewis gives a time about 2.30 when she enters the passage leading to the court.Her inquest testimony, as published,states at that time,there was a man outside Crossingham's,a couple FURTHER on in Dorset Street,and no one in the court.

The female of that couple could not possibly be Kelly,if both Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis were telling the truth.There is a disparity of 15 minutes.That would not sit well in court,as you claimed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 05-17-2017, 07:13 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Jon,
Hutchinson,s version gives a time of about 2.15,when Kelly and the male,mrA,enters the passage leading to the court and Kelly's room.
Harry.
2:15 for Hutch watching Kelly & A-man is fine, he left at 3:00 after waiting about 45 mins - so 2:15 roughly, is ok.
However, Sarah Lewis is not so clear.

In her police statement she said "between 2 and 3 o'clock".
At the Inquest she said:
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning"
In the Times she is reported as saying:
"on Friday morning about 2:30,"

"About", being the operative word.
Being "at" Mrs Keylers at 2:30 am doesn't automatically she walked in the door at that time.

In the Daily Telegraph she is reported as saying:
"I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock."

She also claims the Spitalfields clock woke her up at 3:30 am, so presumably the clock also chimed at 2:30, which is how she knew the time.

Lewis was already at the Keylers when the clock chimed 2:30, but this is not necessarily the time she arrived.
She does not say what the time was when she arrived.

Lewis was already at the Keylers when the clock chimed 2:30, but for how many minutes had she been there?
We do not know.

Quote:
Her inquest testimony, as published,states at that time,there was a man outside Crossingham's,a couple FURTHER on in Dorset Street,and no one in the court.
You added "Dorset Street", the article does not say that.

"Further" could mean "on down Dorset St", or further "on up the court".
If we consult the Daily News, we find out what "further on" did mean.
"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So there we have it explained, "further on" did mean further on up the court.

And, the fact there was no-one in the court is exactly what Hutchinson said. The couple he watched went into room 13, so they were also not in the court.
Apparently, the couple Lewis saw, in the same place, at the same time, also went indoors.

One other point is worth making. Sarah Lewis is not offering a continuous narrative. She is responding to specific questions. The line "There was nobody in the court" is a reply to a question, it does not continue from the previous sentence.

We do not play one version off against the other. What we do, is what any investigator will do, and that is collate all versions together to better understand what took place that night.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 05-21-2017, 11:45 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.
They wanted to solve the case,a big case,and at that time eyewitness was much more important than today (with science) and they would just let the only witness who saw the potential killer for several minutes go?
All they had to do was ask him to report every month or 2 for a reward and/or get his address and if he moves to report.
But I guess just let him ago and if they find a good suspect,just use the witness who is easiest to find even if he can't identify the man if he saw him again.Unbelievable.You think the police then was that dumb?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 05-21-2017, 01:04 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
They wanted to solve the case,a big case,and at that time eyewitness was much more important than today (with science) and they would just let the only witness who saw the potential killer for several minutes go?
All they had to do was ask him to report every month or 2 for a reward and/or get his address and if he moves to report.
But I guess just let him ago and if they find a good suspect,just use the witness who is easiest to find even if he can't identify the man if he saw him again.Unbelievable.You think the police then was that dumb?
You're making that assumption, not me.
Abberline may have asked him to keep the office updated with a forwarding address every time he moves. Maybe he did, at least at first, or maybe he didn't. As this is pure speculation what cause do you have to jump to the next step and accuse the police of being dumb?

The selection of Lawende, for the reason's given, is the most practical solution. Which does not mean they dismissed all the other witnesses in the case, especially when they may have been very difficult to find.
So long as the police believe the same man is responsible for all the murders (Canonical Five), then they can use any description associated with each respective murder, so by extension, from any respective witness. They are still chasing the same villain.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:45 PM
Flower and Dean Flower and Dean is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about his personality and assuming he was telling the truth, I wonder if he thought he could get some money out of this man. If he thought of the man as a mark, that could explain why he'd keep such a close watch on him and noticed so many details. It would explain why he took so long to talk to the cops, too.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.