Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    ????
    I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
    Daily News, 13th Nov. 1888

    This does not say, AS THEY passed up the court.
    If you read all the reports - as opposed to singling out this hopelessly garbled* account in the Daily News - the picture emerges of Lewis seeing the couple "further on" in Dorset Street, at around the same time she clocked the man standing outside the lodging-house opposite. Do you seriously believe that, if Lewis had seen a couple actually entering Miller's Court we wouldn't have heard more about it in the other papers, and in Lewis's official witness statement?

    * Garbled to the point where the Daily News, in the very same report, has Lewis say that she saw Mr Widewake standing "in the doorway of the deceased's house", which is patently incorrect.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      Exactly. Hutch says he followed Mary and arman as they lingered in front of the court and then they went into the court at which point hutch made his little vigil as waiting watching man, then Lewis comes, sees hutch and then goes into the court. Even the logistics don’t allow for Lewis to see Mary and aman go up the court.

      But Aman is a figment anyway so it’s a moot point.

      Hutch came to find Mary and was waiting for her, or her guest to leave, when Lewis appeared.

      It ain’t rocket science, although some, or one wants to make it out to be.
      Agree.This has been said numerous times.2:15 AM Kelly/Aman entered the court.They believe in Hutch but does not want to believe in the details
      of his tale.Silliness.
      Last edited by Varqm; 12-26-2017, 07:35 PM.
      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • Hi,
        I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
        I cannot see what is so suspicious.
        When he made his statement to the police on the Monday evening, he explained to them , that he hesitated coming forward, and a fellow in his lodging house , said he ought to.
        I cannot see what is wrong with his account.
        He saw a woman he knew, spoke to her, followed her back to Dorset street, as he was curious , that she was with a well dressed man.although it did not occur to him it smelt danger.
        He waited [ most likely hoping the man would leave, and he could spend some time in the room].
        When this did not occur, he moved on.
        As it was rumoured over the weekend, that Kelly was killed during the hours of light, he did not consider anything suspicious.
        But when he began to realise the medical reports stated otherwise, he considered he may have seen her killer, and finally plucked up courage to venture into the police station.
        He assisted the police, and nothing materialised.
        Regards Richard.

        Comment


        • Jon,

          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Lewis said she DIDN'T know Mary - so what on earth are you talking about now?

          In my post it was the fact that she had no connection with Mary that was relevant, and the 4 women I mentioned did.

          [B][I]No-one; not press, not the public, knew about Cox's sighting until the inquest - stop deluding yourself. It doesn't matter what WE know today - of course WE know Blotchy was with Kelly at midnight - BECAUSE WE'VE ALL READ THE BLOODY INQUEST, for goodness sake - wake up man!!![/[/I]B]

          I wonder at times whether you had read it Jon. The police knew of the man Jon, and they had every reason to believe that this was the last person seen with Mary, so whether the press was told or not, Blotchy would OF COURSE be considered a suspect. That's SOP, and surely something you can grasp.

          "I know you can't be bothered, or possibly you don't know how to do this - but if you think the police identified Blotchy as a suspect before the Monday inquest - go ahead and post the account - or sit back down and be quiet".

          See the above.
          Its abundantly clear that in the Inquest the presumption is that Mary was last seen with Blotchy Man. That's based primarily on the stories given by the women who actually knew Mary and were in closest proximity to her that night. Mary Ann Cox was the person called to give her story after the man closest to Mary, Joe, and the men who found Mary, gave theirs. Seems a logical way to set up the witness who saw Mary last. Or is that too logical and rational?

          The manner in which the witnesses were introduced seems to vary in the proceedings and is not always delivered in the most logical fashion, i.e. most pertinent story immediately after the background is established....and Barnetts testimony shows us Mary was living alone,...pertinent to the question at hand, and Bowyer and McCarthy establish time and manner in which she is found, also pertinent. It was logically presented in this case.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
            Hi,
            I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
            I cannot see what is so suspicious.

            Regards Richard.
            How about a 4 day delay if he indeed was a friend of Marys and the fantastic and minute detail of the appearance of someone in the middle of the night with what had to be minimum lighting Richard. To start.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
              Hi,
              I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
              I cannot see what is so suspicious.
              When he made his statement to the police on the Monday evening, he explained to them , that he hesitated coming forward, and a fellow in his lodging house , said he ought to.
              I cannot see what is wrong with his account.
              He saw a woman he knew, spoke to her, followed her back to Dorset street, as he was curious , that she was with a well dressed man.although it did not occur to him it smelt danger.
              He waited [ most likely hoping the man would leave, and he could spend some time in the room].
              When this did not occur, he moved on.
              As it was rumoured over the weekend, that Kelly was killed during the hours of light, he did not consider anything suspicious.
              But when he began to realise the medical reports stated otherwise, he considered he may have seen her killer, and finally plucked up courage to venture into the police station.
              He assisted the police, and nothing materialised.
              Regards Richard.
              Hi Richard
              Despite that I have always vigorously voiced my opinion that hutch was full of ****, I actually have no problem with this, although I think it is by far the most unlikely scenario. It’s when people start twisting facts and cherry picking obvious erroneous press accounts that pisses me off.

              Now, that being said, the only point you make that I would have an issue with in your scenario is hutch not coming forward until he heard about Night time TOD.
              I think anyone who had seen that late night activity with AMAN, regardless of what the consensus was favoring a morning murder, would know that it’s important enough to come forward ASAP.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Hi Abby,

                This part of Hutchinson’s statement has always concerned me. I may be alone in this?

                “I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.”


                This isn’t normal behaviour (whatever normal is of course ). It’s always seemed to me like an attempt by Hutchinson to validate himself as a witness. He doesn’t mention Kelly commenting on this behaviour but you would have thought that she’d have been non-too-pleased at H intimidating a client and potentially scaring him off. I could imagine Mary telling him to p*#* off!

                Also, is it really likely that Hutchinson, who lived hand to mouth in dosshouses, could afford to give her a few shillings now a then?

                For thirty years or so I’ve struggled to avoid the impression that Hutchinson was just a nobody who wanted to feel important, or like a generous benefactor and maybe earn a few pints for his story while he was at it. I could be wrong of course but it’s hard for me to think otherwise
                Regards

                Herlock




                “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  If you read all the reports - as opposed to singling out this hopelessly garbled* account in the Daily News -...
                  I didn't single this out Gareth - you did!
                  If you recall, it was you who claimed she didn't say she saw anyone pass up the court.

                  The press coverage taken as a whole is quite consistent with Lewis walking down Dorset St. behind this couple, seeing them pass up the court, then when she reached the court, as she said, she saw a man standing opposite, and there was no-one in the court, which there wouldn't be had this couple gone into one of the rooms - exactly what Hutchinson claimed they did.
                  Of course this couple will be "further on", when Lewis is walking behind them, so that is perfectly correct too.


                  Do you seriously believe that, if Lewis had seen a couple actually entering Miller's Court we wouldn't have heard more about it in the other papers, and in Lewis's official witness statement?
                  The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version. Ignoring the reason why this happens, especially when it has been explained to you several times, does you no favors.

                  This couple entering the court was not important at the time her testimony was being given as no-body believed either had a role to play in this murder, not forgetting the fact Lewis had no idea the drunk & hatless woman was Mary Kelly herself.

                  Garbled to the point where the Daily News, in the very same report, has Lewis say that she saw Mr Widewake standing "in the doorway of the deceased's house", which is patently incorrect.
                  Hutchinson does admit to walking up to her room to stand and listen, but could hear nothing. So, he must have gone up the passage to stand outside her door.
                  Each newspaper provided different parts of her testimony, edited down, while the court recorder only concerned himself with select points of interest to the coroner.
                  All the versions need to be put together to obtain the complete story.

                  Reporters who covered the inquests had to rely on shorthand or pay scribes to transcribe the testimony, and then they faced a choice between paraphrase and direct quotation. Whichever method they selected, not even the most in-depth published reports contained a full version of the exchanges between the coroner and the surgeon being interrogated.
                  Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Perry, 2001.

                  There are plenty of sources for you to look up that will tell you the press used shorthand, whereas the court recorder at an inquest used longhand - so to keep up with the proceedings he had to skip entire lines of testimony.

                  We have this same situation with the Eddowes case - I'm sure you know this too, so why you keep repeating this obviously false line of argument must be intended as a distraction as it adds no value to the discussion.

                  The court record is only a brief account, not the full account.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    1. The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version. Ignoring the reason why this happens, especially when it has been explained to you several times, does you no favors.

                    2. This couple entering the court was not important at the time her testimony was being given as no-body believed either had a role to play in this murder, not forgetting the fact Lewis had no idea the drunk & hatless woman was Mary Kelly.
                    Jon, why do you insist on posting nonsense and acting as if your perspective is the obvious one.

                    For 1, the press coverage is not the official version, the printed version of the Inquest is. The press obviously did not always print every word and every line verbatim, they were taking notes. They are not the definitive record at all. We do not have the complete Inquest documents created by the body in charge, but we do have lots of accounts that mirror each other.

                    2, any account of any couple entering the courtyard after midnight would be important, considering that the police wanted to interview anyone who was in that court during that night. Its like claiming Israels story was absent from the Inquest because it wasn't important to the germane question, when in fact, if it was believed, it would have been the MOST important statement.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      I didn't single this out Gareth - you did!
                      You're the one who quoted the inaccurate Daily News report, not me.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        I didn't single this out Gareth - you did!
                        If you recall, it was you who claimed she didn't say she saw anyone pass up the court.

                        The press coverage taken as a whole is quite consistent with Lewis walking down Dorset St. behind this couple, seeing them pass up the court, then when she reached the court, as she said, she saw a man standing opposite, and there was no-one in the court, which there wouldn't be had this couple gone into one of the rooms - exactly what Hutchinson claimed they did.
                        Of course this couple will be "further on", when Lewis is walking behind them, so that is perfectly correct too.




                        The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version. Ignoring the reason why this happens, especially when it has been explained to you several times, does you no favors.

                        This couple entering the court was not important at the time her testimony was being given as no-body believed either had a role to play in this murder, not forgetting the fact Lewis had no idea the drunk & hatless woman was Mary Kelly herself.



                        Hutchinson does admit to walking up to her room to stand and listen, but could hear nothing. So, he must have gone up the passage to stand outside her door.
                        Each newspaper provided different parts of her testimony, edited down, while the court recorder only concerned himself with select points of interest to the coroner.
                        All the versions need to be put together to obtain the complete story.

                        Reporters who covered the inquests had to rely on shorthand or pay scribes to transcribe the testimony, and then they faced a choice between paraphrase and direct quotation. Whichever method they selected, not even the most in-depth published reports contained a full version of the exchanges between the coroner and the surgeon being interrogated.
                        Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Perry, 2001.

                        There are plenty of sources for you to look up that will tell you the press used shorthand, whereas the court recorder at an inquest used longhand - so to keep up with the proceedings he had to skip entire lines of testimony.

                        We have this same situation with the Eddowes case - I'm sure you know this too, so why you keep repeating this obviously false line of argument must be intended as a distraction as it adds no value to the discussion.

                        The court record is only a brief account, not the full account.
                        That’s quite a little dance you’ve got Lewis, hutch, Aman and Mary doing wick.
                        Unfortunately it’s physically impossible.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Hi Abby,

                          This part of Hutchinson’s statement has always concerned me. I may be alone in this?

                          “I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.”


                          This isn’t normal behaviour (whatever normal is of course ). It’s always seemed to me like an attempt by Hutchinson to validate himself as a witness. He doesn’t mention Kelly commenting on this behaviour but you would have thought that she’d have been non-too-pleased at H intimidating a client and potentially scaring him off. I could imagine Mary telling him to p*#* off!

                          Also, is it really likely that Hutchinson, who lived hand to mouth in dosshouses, could afford to give her a few shillings now a then?

                          For thirty years or so I’ve struggled to avoid the impression that Hutchinson was just a nobody who wanted to feel important, or like a generous benefactor and maybe earn a few pints for his story while he was at it. I could be wrong of course but it’s hard for me to think otherwise
                          That’s more than likely all he was. And yes the whole looked in his face bit, is just another way for hutch to bend over backward in his description of the aman story to seem very credible to the police.

                          Great look at his face, incredible detailed description, looked like a Jew, thinks he saw him before, knows where he lives. Bullshit.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version.
                            But the Daily News is demonstrably garbled in its reportage of Lewis's testimony. It's not good having more detail in a press report, when the press report in question is clearly in error on a number of points.

                            Plus, as I've repeatedly observed, it's odd that the remarkable and hugely significant fact that Lewis saw a couple directly proceed her into Miller's Court is only picked up by one paper. Unless, of course, it wasn't a "fact" at all, but a journalistic balls-up... which it almost certainly was.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              That’s quite a little dance you’ve got Lewis, hutch, Aman and Mary doing wick.
                              Unfortunately it’s physically impossible.
                              It's easy to say it was physically impossible, and then not explain why - that is taking the easy way out.
                              Care to complete your sentence by explaining why, in your view, it is physically impossible?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Jon, why do you insist on posting nonsense and acting as if your perspective is the obvious one.
                                It isn't that my view is the obvious one. What I am trying to impress on you is there is a right way and a wrong way to view the historical record.
                                Your approach is not the approach adopted by serious researchers.
                                There is not one account of the inquest which is superior to another, and I explained the reasons why - all to no avail it seems.
                                It's like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.
                                I've been trying to get a bunch of you to understand this for years, but as is always the case collectively you refuse to understand anything that shows your theories to be wrong.

                                In all other cases, the experienced researcher looks to the press coverage of an inquest AS WELL AS the court record, because it is in the press where we can obtain the most detail.
                                It isn't just "my view", that is just the professional the way to do it.

                                Once all the accounts are obtained the entire record is reviewed as a whole, and an attempt is made to sequence out the events, and if there are any contradicting points of detail they need to be identified.
                                This is all I'm saying.

                                What I'm hearing from some of you is there is a preferred source, and there are sources to be dismissed - which is totally wrong, and typically the approach adopted by those who have a theory to defend rather than showing a genuine interest to find the truth.

                                I don't expect you to understand, all I can do is explain why these myopic views show a lack of experience in research, which subsequently leads you down the wrong path.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X