Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Who would ask?
    Badham was the one taking the statement, Badham was not at the inquest, so Badham does not know Lewis's story about seeing the loiterer.

    Abberline was the one to ask the questions, and that record has not survived.
    It just seems to me you are aiming your objections at the wrong people.
    I'm talking about Abberline's letter,:"and I am of opinion his statement is true".Trying to figure out what was going on at that time the letter was written.

    Badham does not know Lewis's story about seeing the loiterer.

    How do you know,the inquest finish hour(s) ago?


    ---
    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


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Not least since she actually walked right into Millers Court, where Kelly´s dead body was found, and where Hutchinson stood guard outside, would I say that Lewis should have been mentioned! If Hutchinson had reason to remember but one person, it would be her.
      I agree,somethings wrong with the picture.

      ---
      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


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
        I'm talking about Abberline's letter,:"and I am of opinion his statement is true".Trying to figure out what was going on at that time the letter was written.
        Really? - you mentioned Hutchinson's statement to Ben.

        However, Abberline had resources available to him.
        Just because we cannot know how he arrived at that decision does not mean his decision was flawed.

        Badham does not know Lewis's story about seeing the loiterer.

        How do you know,the inquest finish hour(s) ago?
        We don't know when the inquest closed, so that can't be used as an argument.

        From surviving accounts we know the police were represented by Supt. Arnold, head of H Div. who was based at Leman St. And, both Abberline and Nairn, both from Scotland Yard.
        No-one from Commercial street station. So no one to pass gossip among the officers, and no available transcript of all the witness testimony.

        This was a Scotland Yard case, if you remember, so don't think every officer in the force knew what Scotland Yard knew.
        Last edited by Wickerman; 08-27-2018, 04:35 PM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
          Abberline letter:

          "and I am of opinion his statement is true";

          "and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 a.m. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased."


          why was abberline confident when the witness has not identified the body yet? what if it was a different Kelly/woman? Although he was going to
          an additional "check",witness identifying the body/Kelly,whether this witness was relevant or not.But he got a long way to go,additional checks mentioned in a previous post would have made it surer.

          ---
          I don't think we'll ever know what gave Abberline confidence in Hutchinson. However, according to Hutch's press statement, at least, it wasn't misplaced;

          "I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning."

          Comment


          • Which part of the body did Hutchinson recognize?
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • It doesn't matter what time the inquest closed,it is only necessary to know at what time Lewis gave her evidene,to judge whether Badham could have known of her sighting.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Which part of the body did Hutchinson recognize?
                Her two false teeth?
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • One of the reasons given why Hutch [as a witness] didn't come forward at the time is that he may implicate himself. But the one person who could give veracity to his account, Lewis, when he did come forward, he doesn't mention. It just doesn't make sense.

                  Comment


                  • Hi all,
                    It just goes to show if one has a suspicious mind, and incorporates that with acute imagination, anything is possible
                    I am referring to the witness Hutchinson, who has been accused of all kinds of skulduggery , from Murder , possible Mugger, pimp, and if not those. a liar.
                    Topping is the only man with the name Hutchinson, who has ever presented himself as the witness,
                    Both of his sons were aware of this , also family members.
                    Yet we persist in looking for other Hutchinson's throughout the universal, who may fit the profile more.
                    No wonder we are no nearer solving this case, everything has been turned on its head, facts have been twisted to assist theories., figures in history have been named as possible culprits , as authors look for an audience.
                    Maybe we should try and be more realistic in our approaches.
                    Regards Richard.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                      Maybe we should try and be more realistic in our approaches.
                      Here's a touch of realism:

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	1888 p3 Toppy.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	667510

                      ... is that coffee I smell?
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Topping is the only man with the name Hutchinson, who has ever presented himself as the witness
                        Where’s the evidence that Toppy “presented himself”, Richard?

                        I know that a man named Reginald Hutchinson “presented” his father in a discredited royal conspiracy book, but I’m not aware of any proactive efforts on the part of Toppy himself.

                        Maybe we should try and be more realistic in our approaches.
                        You mean more along the lines of your recently proposed masonic conspiracy theory, in which the number 39 holds such vast significance for the killer that he made sure to stab Martha Tabram precisely that many times?

                        Anyway, is there any chance we can avoid the trap of turning this into a Toppy thread? There are quite a number of those already.
                        Last edited by Ben; 08-28-2018, 01:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • The Echo said nothing about Hutchinson or his account being “investigated” on the 19th, Jon. They observed that some of the authorities continued to wonder if his account might be valid despite its recent discrediting. This is perfectly understandable in the absence of proof that he lied, but there’s no evidence that the Hutchinson supporters influenced the direction of the investigation.

                          Can I repeat a recent response I received from you, by asking for a quote from this source at the police station - if you deem it so reliable?
                          I can demonstrate that their report was based on a proven communication with the police, but we’ve discussed the issue many times, and it would be rather tedious to have to go through it all again. I’m quite sure nobody would thank me for copy-and-pasting whole swathes of old discussion.

                          So tell me, why does only 50 George Hutchinson's (there's more than 50 in the press), make the random selection of just one as our witness any more reliable?
                          I suggest you obtain yourself a copy of Stephen Senise’s “False Flag”, in which the relevant details of the proposed identification are provided.

                          However, Abberline had resources available to him.
                          Just because we cannot know how he arrived at that decision does not mean his decision was flawed
                          What “resources” were “available” to Abberline that enabled him to confirm aspects of Hutchinson’s account before he sent his report that evening? Unless they included a crystal ball, I’m very sceptical.

                          All the best,
                          Ben
                          Last edited by Ben; 08-28-2018, 02:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Varqm,

                            I don’t disagree with your observations at all, quite the contrary. I suspect, however, that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to prevent or delay the recognition that he came forward as a direct result of her evidence.

                            As surprising as it may seem today, it appears that no connection was ever made between Lewis and Hutchinson, not even in the press who had ample opportunity to notice it. The wideawake=Hutchinson connection appears not to have been made by anyone, in print at least, until at least 100 years after the murders.

                            Regards,
                            Ben
                            Last edited by Ben; 08-28-2018, 02:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Hi RJ,

                              Why can't this able seaman be from Glasgow or Plymouth or somewhere else?
                              Because these places were either major established ports already or had access to much closer ones than London. An able seaman (or a labourer faking the credentials of same) living in Plymouth would obviously have embarked from that port city.

                              All the best,
                              Ben

                              Comment


                              • Hi Ben - I have a touch of insomnia, and thought I'd drop in. So I can give you an immediate response. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Are you saying every deckhand on the R.M.S. Ormuz had to be living in London at the time of the 1881 UK census? It sound non-sensical to me. Sailors, by their nature, come from all over the place and move from port to port. My aged father, to give but one example, was once stationed on a ship in San Diego, California, but came from Central Montana in the middle of the Great Plains. As Edward Stow pointed out, there is no evidence in the Australian records that the Aussie "Flasher" George Hutchinson was a Londoner. He could have been, but there's no documentation of it that I've seen mentioned anywhere.


                                Perhaps Senise has since altered his theories--I don't know--but he originally had Bob Hinton's "Shadwell" Hutchinson as the Aussie Sailor. As Stow demonstrated, this guy was living in Camberwell in 1901. They aren't the same man. Or, rather, let's just say that the possibility that they are the same man is so remarkably remote that it's really not even worth considering. P.S. A belated thanks for your source information on the Victoria Home. Much appreciated. All the best.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X