Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • What information is it Jon,pertinent to the case,that we do not have,but Aberline might have?
    How Kelly was dressed when accosting Hutchinson? Does it matter?.Hutchinson's identification of Kelly was of a person with whom he had been aquainted over a period of time,and gave money to.

    The weather? Seeing as she (Kelly) was killed indoor's,I see little relevance in including that particular item.Any patrol officer could have supplied that information had it been needed.

    What Hutchinson did in coming forward was to provide an alibi for himself and the midnight companion."Couldn't have been us mr Aberline,cause she met a stranger at 2AM and took him to her room". Didn't need to say that of course,only imply that was the situation.

    Did it work.Maybe,but the need for an interrogation,and an opinion based declaration of honesty,hardly conveys a real belief that Hutchinson was beyond suspicion.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
      An hour or two,expand on his history/relationship with Kelly.That's it,it's what the letter said.Then they were going to spend "few hours tonight" to see if Hutch could spot the suspect.I interpret "tonight" as before midnight,not including the early mornings,although it could have.
      ----
      That's more like it

      The report to which you refer merely lists a few hi-lites from Abberline's day, an interrogation report is a detailed document. The two are very different.
      An interrogation report does not leave the investigation team, it gets filed.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        What information is it Jon,pertinent to the case,that we do not have,but Aberline might have?
        How Kelly was dressed when accosting Hutchinson? Does it matter?.Hutchinson's identification of Kelly was of a person with whom he had been aquainted over a period of time,and gave money to.

        The weather? Seeing as she (Kelly) was killed indoor's,I see little relevance in including that particular item.Any patrol officer could have supplied that information had it been needed.

        What Hutchinson did in coming forward was to provide an alibi for himself and the midnight companion."Couldn't have been us mr Aberline,cause she met a stranger at 2AM and took him to her room". Didn't need to say that of course,only imply that was the situation.

        Did it work.Maybe,but the need for an interrogation,and an opinion based declaration of honesty,hardly conveys a real belief that Hutchinson was beyond suspicion.
        A witness can be interrogated without being under suspicion.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          A witness can be interrogated without being under suspicion.
          And vice versus?
          "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


          • Technically you may be correct Jon,but my lawenforcement experience was that Interrogation was reserved for cases in which suspicion existed.

            Had no suspicion been evident on the part of someone that evening,then there would have been no reason for Aberline to have formed an opinion.To have made that choice,he must also have considered the alternative that Hutchinson was lying.On what grounds? I suppose the same grounds that so many have written of since.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ben View Post
              ....But that’s such an obviously unfair and irrational criticism, given how subjective an entity “researcher capability” is. A “capable researcher” in your mind is presumably one who agrees with the conclusions you jumped to years ago regarding Hutchinson.
              I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
              Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything.


              No, that’s not my actual stance on my debating opponents as I’m sure you appreciate, but it’s a pretty accurate satirisation of your own logic for dismissing Senise’s identification.
              My view stems from reliable sources who have offered opinions like these:

              "....I thought everyone had been sucked in to this from comments made so far.
              As I said on FB, no one knows GH's age and Shadwell GH was living in Croydon in 1911.
              The Oz GH had a previous conviction according to police records but I couldn't find what that was, perhaps it will be in the article.
              There is absolutely nothing to link this convicted criminal to GH the witness, so far, unless there is something more concrete in the full article."


              And...

              "The article contains no evidence to suggest that the George Hutchinson who was found guilty in New South Wales in 1896 for indecent exposure was from London or had ever lived in London. The prisoner was clearly the same man as the Able Seaman –but that he held that rank pretty much precludes him from being the witness George Hutchinson."


              You mean your strategy of never reading a single ripper book until you’ve had it on the good authority of a “capable researcher” that the author in question has definitely solved the Jack the Ripper mystery? Yep, it’s clearly working wonders for you, Jon.
              You seem to have this unenviable ability for repeating that which was never said.

              There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate. Much of the relevant information is available in the newspapers.
              While some books by theorists can include an occasional factual jewel here and there, they often misrepresent details to make their theory appear more factual.


              Never have I encountered a theory so dependent on irrational collective stupidity on the part of so many. Stupid Abberline (and the rest of the police, inferentially) for failing to ask Bowyer if he had seen anyone suspicious on the night in question, stupid coroner for not bothering to ask either, and stupid Bowyer for not thinking to volunteer such obviously critical information.
              Thankyou for that, you appear to have proved my point.



              Yeah. Like “did you see any suspicious persons?”, which is an ever-so-slightly important question to ask in the context of an unsolved brutal murder and an uncaught serial killer. No “narrative of their life” required; just an answer to that utterly pertinent question.
              You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.


              The inquest didn’t happen on Friday; it happened on Monday, three days later, by which time it was understood that Kelly was probably murdered in the early morning, in common with previous victims.....
              Keep your eye on the ball Ben, we were talking about Abberline's questions to Bowyer, this was Friday. The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?

              On Friday there was no belief that Kelly had been murdered over night, as available sources claimed to have seen her alive in the late morning.


              You’re the one constantly reminding us that witnesses were interrogated in “question and answer” format. What makes you think anything different occurred with the Millers Court witnesses? How do you know that Lewis and Cox didn’t mention Wideawake and Blotchy (respectively) in response to the specific question “did you see any strange men that night?”.
              Where are these questions in the inquest record?


              You’re forever waxing lyrical about proper interrogation techniques, but you don’t apply your spiel with any sort of consistency. It’s one rule for Hutchinson (“everything he said was the result of a Q&A session”) but quite another for the inquest attendees when they were questioned by police (“they gave a continuous narrative without being interrupted by police questions”). I’m obviously paraphrasing here, but I think it captures the essence of your inconsistency.
              Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
              A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony.
              The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions, the latter is the result of questions alone.
              The witness is in control of the narrative in the police statement, the coroner is in control of the narrative at the inquest.
              That is the difference.


              They had a “particular time in mind” well in advance of the inquest - the one inferred from the Lewis/Prater-reported cry of “murder”, which any sighting of a 3.00am stranger would have been extremely relevant to, and yet Bowyer mentioned nothing of such a sighting. I wonder why?
              Cries of murder were common place, as voiced by many at the time.
              What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post

                Had no suspicion been evident on the part of someone that evening,then there would have been no reason for Aberline to have formed an opinion.To have made that choice,he must also have considered the alternative that Hutchinson was lying.On what grounds? I suppose the same grounds that so many have written of since.
                I would say the reason for Abberline expressing an opinion was to make it clear to his superiors this was not another mistaken sighting. The police were inundated with false claims, this one was not of that class, in his opinion.
                The possibility also exists in any situation like this that this witness had been involved in the murder. An interrogating officer keeps an open mind.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
                  Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything.




                  My view stems from reliable sources who have offered opinions like these:

                  "....I thought everyone had been sucked in to this from comments made so far.
                  As I said on FB, no one knows GH's age and Shadwell GH was living in Croydon in 1911.
                  The Oz GH had a previous conviction according to police records but I couldn't find what that was, perhaps it will be in the article.
                  There is absolutely nothing to link this convicted criminal to GH the witness, so far, unless there is something more concrete in the full article."


                  And...

                  "The article contains no evidence to suggest that the George Hutchinson who was found guilty in New South Wales in 1896 for indecent exposure was from London or had ever lived in London. The prisoner was clearly the same man as the Able Seaman –but that he held that rank pretty much precludes him from being the witness George Hutchinson."




                  You seem to have this unenviable ability for repeating that which was never said.

                  There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate. Much of the relevant information is available in the newspapers.
                  While some books by theorists can include an occasional factual jewel here and there, they often misrepresent details to make their theory appear more factual.




                  Thankyou for that, you appear to have proved my point.





                  You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.




                  Keep your eye on the ball Ben, we were talking about Abberline's questions to Bowyer, this was Friday. The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?

                  On Friday there was no belief that Kelly had been murdered over night, as available sources claimed to have seen her alive in the late morning.




                  Where are these questions in the inquest record?




                  Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
                  A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony.
                  The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions, the latter is the result of questions alone.
                  The witness is in control of the narrative in the police statement, the coroner is in control of the narrative at the inquest.
                  That is the difference.




                  Cries of murder were common place, as voiced by many at the time.
                  What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?
                  As an investigating officer the difficulty you have is that unless you can disprove what a witness is saying, then what the witness says has to be accepted, But of course the witness testimony when given at court is open to be accepted or rejected by a jury.

                  Personal opinions count for nothing in the real world of policing, and do not solve cases, and do not eliminate a suspect or prove a suspects guilt.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-17-2018, 11:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
                    Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything
                    Except to “theorise” that Senise’s proposed identification of Hutchinson is an erroneous one, apparently; but on the basis of what actual “research” are these rejections of Aussie George based?

                    You seem oddly and obstinately averse to expanding your knowledge the good old fashioned way; by reading a book. Why is that? At the moment you’re clutching at every lame excuse under the sun for not reading a book on the very subject matter you purport an avid interest in. You write disparagingly about “theorists who dabble in research”, and yet that precisely describes your approach to Senise’s work, minus the “research” bit. You post a good deal more than you read, and it ought to be the other way round.

                    If you had actually read the book, you would know, for instance, that at no point was “Shadwell GH” suggested as being identical with the Ormuz crew member, and that the latter was almost certainly not a genuine “able seaman”. In fact, you are quoting initial reactions, posted on a message board, to an article written in 2015, as opposed to an updated book written by the same author three years later.

                    A lot can change and develop in three years.

                    Three years ago you thought Astrakhan man was Joseph Isaacs, remember?

                    There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate.
                    We read books to expand our knowledge, Jon, not so we can “hold our own” in internet debates. There is a great deal of useful, factual information to be found in Stephen’s book quite apart from his overall theory and proposed identification of Hutchinson. What “details” are you accusing this particular author of “misrepresenting”, bearing in mind you don’t even know what those details are because you haven’t read the book?

                    You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.
                    The ones that had already responded in the affirmative to that very same question when it was put to then during initial police questioning; Lewis, Cox, and Maxwell. Bowyer was not asked that question at the inquest because he had already made clear to the police that he had not seen any suspicious strangers that night or morning.

                    The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?
                    I’ve spend the last paragraphing explaining as much, on the assumption that you didn’t. As I’ve made very clear already, if it only occurred to the police after the initial period of statement-taking that Kelly was murdered in the small hours, there was still ample opportunity, pre-inquest, to ask Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious men around that time.

                    Where are these questions in the inquest record?
                    Nowhere. The question had already been asked of all witnesses by the police when the initial statements were taken; that it how the information regarding Blotchy, Wideawake and the Bethnal Green botherer was extracted in the first place.

                    A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony. The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions
                    Wrong. A police statement is the result of a “mostly continuous narrative” followed by lots of questions, chief amongst which would have been “did you see any suspicious strangers?”. If there was no mention of any stranger, as was the case with Bowyer, it means he was asked the question but hadn’t seen any. Or Abberline was an incompetent bellend who didn’t bother to ask at all. Take your pick.

                    What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?
                    Well, lots apparently.

                    Otherwise why would the coroner caution Maxwell to be careful with her evidence because it was “different” to other witnesses’? And why was Maurice Lewis excluded altogether? The 9.00am theory lost traction well in advance of the inquest, and the police had oodles of time and opportunity beforehand to realise the significance of a stranger in the court at 3.00am. So if any of the inquest witnesses had made such a sighting, it would certainly have been aired there and then.

                    All the best,
                    Ben
                    Last edited by Ben; 09-18-2018, 01:58 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Jon,
                      I would say that Aberline forwarded an opinion because he felt obliged to.Who else was there that could inform his superiers of the information presented by Hutchinson.In the abscence of evidence available at the time,opinion appears the only recourse.Suspicion in whatever form, was secondry to the presumption of innocence,hence an opinion of honesty was the proper expression,but not neccessarily the correct one.

                      Comment


                      • Hi
                        We can safely say that Mary Kelly was visited by a man who was not all there , the only unnamed person who saw that was a customer of McCarthys who told Mrs M , she saw a 'strange looking man, up the court this morning'.
                        I have never gone with the convenient T.O.D,which the Doctors aligned with the Cry as being the most likely.
                        I believe there are similarities between Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly.
                        It was said that Annie was in a pub early morning, when a man beckoned her out.
                        Rather similar to the alleged occurrence , that happened on the morning of the 9th. when it is claimed Kelly was beckoned out of Ringers by a man, and she went off with him, about a hour before she was found
                        Regards Richard.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          As an investigating officer the difficulty you have is that unless you can disprove what a witness is saying, then what the witness says has to be accepted,....
                          Agreed, the witness is given the benefit of the doubt. They are not treated as liars, they are not dismissed without a valid cause. The police take what they say on trust, until or unless something surfaces to say otherwise.
                          This is how we should treat Hutchinson, Bowyer, Kennedy, etc., just as the police did.


                          But of course the witness testimony when given at court is open to be accepted or rejected by a jury.
                          At a trial yes, but some on Casebook confuse the inquest with a trial, and expect the coroner to investigate the case as the police would have.
                          The coroner is not interested in solving a murder, that is not his job. The Who, Where, When & By what means the victim died is the purview of the coroner.

                          Personal opinions count for nothing in the real world of policing, and do not solve cases, and do not eliminate a suspect or prove a suspects guilt.
                          True, but Abberline was only expressing his opinion in an internal report to his superior. Basically he was telling his boss, this witness needs to be taken seriously.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            Jon,
                            I would say that Aberline forwarded an opinion because he felt obliged to.Who else was there that could inform his superiers of the information presented by Hutchinson.In the abscence of evidence available at the time,opinion appears the only recourse.Suspicion in whatever form, was secondry to the presumption of innocence,hence an opinion of honesty was the proper expression,but not neccessarily the correct one.
                            As I said to Trevor.
                            Abberline's, "I am of the opinion his statement is true", was intended to mean Hutchinson needs to be taken seriously. That the story he told is not one of mistaken identity, nor one intended to mislead the authorities.
                            There was no direct implication that Hutchinson was a suspect who turned out to be innocent in Abberline's mind, that is not what he meant by that comment.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • "I am of the opinion his statement is true."

                              For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                "I am of the opinion his statement is true."

                                For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.
                                Exactly.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X