Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
Hutchinsons statement....
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostMichael, Joseph Isaacs managed to turn himself out as quite the dandy, "fancy dressed" was one observation of him. Isaacs didn't have two pennies to rub together. He was a confidence trickster & thief.
Leave a comment:
-
If the man stood out to hutch as being so well dressed, indeed this was his lame excuse for taking such notice, then I would go out on a limb and say that it was unusual. lol.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by harry View PostIt's not a question or answer of anything.It's interesting.
To my mind, it would have been a lot easier for you to just say: "Oh, sorry, did I write Cox? It should have been Lewis."
... and that would have been the end of it. Choosing to stand your ground in the middle of the Atlantic ocean will only get you sunk.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by harry View PostFisherman,
I have plenty of time to waste.I was merely drawing attention to the claim of 3am as interesting,as if true,it places several people in or near Millers Court at that time,certainly the victim,and possibly the murderer.
And it is no longer a question of how Hutchinson should have stumbled over her?
I see.
Leave a comment:
-
Didn't Hutchinson say,Á man so well dressed'.Meaning a cut above the neighberhood? How could he tell it was astrakhan? Myself, I can't distinguish types of fur even in daylight.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified"
Jon,
Re-reading the above, you may want to rephrase what was obviously an erroneous statement. The description clearly identifies the man as someone with money, or the ability to present himself as such.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWell hold on, I think you must mean Dr Phillips. Bond was giving a report to Anderson not the Coroner.
Dr. Bond was at Millers Court on Saturday subsequent to the autopsy, along with Philips. Both gentlemen were accompanied by the police, and Macdonald.
As Phillips, Bond & Macdonald were all police surgeons it would be impractical to suggest they did not discuss the medical evidence between them.
Yes, Dr. Bond did write his report to Anderson, to forward to Warren. But the details contained within that report are the result of the medical evidence.
I'm suggesting Macdonald was well aware of what Bond had deduced (likely in agreement with Phillips), not that he read any report.
You can't seriously think that the Coroner was able to rule out a time of death at 3:00am, sufficiently to rule out witness evidence which saw Kelly alive at that time, can you?
It worked in his favor when Prater admitted cries like that were nothing unusual.
But as Cox's evidence is consistent with Dr. Bond's conclusions, then any claimed sighting of Kelly at 3:00 am will not fair well against what he had already learned.
I think he included Maxwell's evidence because this story was the most popular belief as recorded widely in the press. He needed to explore the possibility as mistaken identity.
And don't you find it strange that the Coroner asked Sarah Lewis so many questions about the man who accosted her in Bethnal Green considering that she also saw him outside the Britannia at a time when the Coroner believed Kelly had already been murdered and the killer's accomplice was waiting outside Miller's Court for him to emerge from number 13?
Regardless, there was no suspicion attached to this stranger seen by Lewis, and she had nothing to contribute towards a time of death.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostThat's the impression you get.
There's nothing in his wording to indicate one way or the other.
Jon,
Re-reading the above, you may want to rephrase what was obviously an erroneous statement. The description clearly identifies the man as someone with money, or the ability to present himself as such.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostHi Caz.
Petticoat Lane was also known locally at the time as the Jews' Market, and most people, however poor, would like to have dressed as well as their means allowed (best on Sunday, pawned on Monday, redeemed on payday, sound familiar?), which often meant scouting round the market stalls for old clothes, cast orf by the better orf; fur collars that could be stitched onto worn coats and jackets to give them a new lease of life; imitation jewellery and so on, if one wanted to look a bit flash on the cheap.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
As you know, Top hats were recycled along with all manner of clothing. Anyone could end up wearing clothes that had seen better days, in fact many in the East enders did just that.
If Hutch could not have seen that a hankie was red in the dark (which I and others have disputed in the past),....
Compared with Kelly and the people she usually hung around with, including the unemployed Hutch himself, he could still have appeared 'a cut above', merely on account of choosing to wear flashy gear he'd picked up for very little outlay.
Besides, whenever it's trotted out that no self respecting killer, armed with a lethally sharp blade, would dare be seen out on those streets in smart clobber for fear of muggers or worse, I always think of the Krays and their ilk, and go hmmmm, right...
Love,
Caz
X
Too much influence from the Silver Screen in these complaints.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Varqm View PostTrue.Its unclear in Hutchinson's initial testimony when he left.He could have left at 2:55 AM.and missed Cox.Hutch also missed to mention Lewis's couple "further on". Hutch had or could have missed 4 things (post #915).
As a result there is no cause for doubt or suspicion because they did not mention each other.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostHi Jon,
Just attempting to catch up with this thread and reached the above post of yours. I haven't yet read the responses, if any, but I will 'speak up' now. Much of the attire Hutch described would not have been unusual at all for the area or the period. If Hutch had been the killer, he'd have also been pretty simple to come forward in the first place, never mind try and deflect suspicion onto an impossible A.N. Other.
Petticoat Lane was also known locally at the time as the Jews' Market, and most people, however poor, would like to have dressed as well as their means allowed (best on Sunday, pawned on Monday, redeemed on payday, sound familiar?), which often meant scouting round the market stalls for old clothes, cast orf by the better orf; fur collars that could be stitched onto worn coats and jackets to give them a new lease of life; imitation jewellery and so on, if one wanted to look a bit flash on the cheap.
If Hutch could not have seen that a hankie was red in the dark (which I and others have disputed in the past), would he have noticed if a man was wearing second hand 'posh' clobber with tarted up trimmings, and would that have made a difference anyway to how he described this particular man? Compared with Kelly and the people she usually hung around with, including the unemployed Hutch himself, he could still have appeared 'a cut above', merely on account of choosing to wear flashy gear he'd picked up for very little outlay.
Besides, whenever it's trotted out that no self respecting killer, armed with a lethally sharp blade, would dare be seen out on those streets in smart clobber for fear of muggers or worse, I always think of the Krays and their ilk, and go hmmmm, right...
Love,
Caz
X
the only red hankerchief Hutch saw was in the papers on sailor man
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: