Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    ..... Why would someone who was a friend of someone murdered in that fashion, someone you saw that very night, wait 4 days to come forward? With what might have been a case cracking ID.
    Where does Hutchinson say that Kelly was a friend?
    The claim he knew her doesn't make her a friend.

    And, as you have been made aware of numerous times. The murder was believed to have taken place after 9:00 am Friday morning, prior to the inquest.
    Hutchinson could not help the police with their inquiries because he only saw her 7 hours before her assumed murder.
    Good enough reason to not bother coming forward.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      The MJK inquest was held in the Vestry Room of Shoreditch Town Hall.
      Can you provide a source for detail Simon?
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • According to the Morning Advertiser;

        "The court is being held in a small committee-room on the ground floor, a place altogether inadequate for so important an inquiry."

        There are three committee rooms on the link I posted earlier: large, medium and small.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Jon,
          It was you that raised the question of police procedures,including he means of police recording events.It was you that claimed Hutchinson was a groom,when on the statement he is described as unemployed labourer.
          Harry.
          Back on posts 210 & 228 you seemed to be questioning accuracy of recollections & memory in general. You mentioned notebooks.
          So, I was responding to that.

          Hutchinson left Dorset street about 3am,having been there three quarters of an hour,so arrival time about 2.15.Lewis, accordind to you, arrived after 2.30.
          This is what I wrote:
          In her police statement she says she was there "between 2 and 3 o'clock".
          In her court testimony she says she was there "at 2:30", not she arrived there at 2:30.
          She was already there when the clock struck 2:30 - so she had to arrive BEFORE 2:30.

          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=256

          Lewis arrived BEFORE 2:30, both Lewis & Hutchinson were in Dorset St. between 2:00 and 2:30, they likely saw each other between 2:15 - 2:30. We can't get any nearer than that.

          Ho w could they have seen the same couple,if,according to Hutchinson,Kelly and companion went up the court three minutes after arriving at the entrance.
          What time were they stood at the passage?

          Of course the descriptive paragraph was written by Badham.The whole interview statement was.The content however was supplied by Hutchinson.The manner of which it was presented on paper was a personnel choice of Badham.
          Where do you get the idea that there was a Format that had to be adhered to,or was in use by police at that time.Show evidence of such.
          Of course the content was provided by Hutchinson, you were asking about the phrase, "can be identified", which I said was more likely Badham's choice of words, as was that whole paragraph.

          Have you not seen any police 'wanted' telegrams?
          There are three examples here.

          "At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

          At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

          "At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

          The description given by Hutchinson was published in the same format.


          Have you not seen the form used by the Met. when taking suspect descriptions?

          This is only part of the form, and an example of the detailed questions Hutchinson was asked by Badham.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
            According to the Morning Advertiser;

            "The court is being held in a small committee-room on the ground floor, a place altogether inadequate for so important an inquiry."

            There are three committee rooms on the link I posted earlier: large, medium and small.
            That is where I was going Joshua.
            The largest was 861 sq ft, then 528 or 323.
            One of these is more like it.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Certainly, Jon,

                https://shoreditchtownhall.com -

                Click image for larger version

Name:	SHOREDITCH TOWN HALL WEBSITE.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	14.3 KB
ID:	667454

                https://shoreditchtownhall.com/event...l-chamber.html

                A Ripper conference was recently held there.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • I don't think that is quite what I meant Simon.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Jon,
                    What time do you wish to to state Lewis arrived? Was it before 2.30 or after?
                    If as you wrote,she passed as the church clock struck the half hour,a nd turned into Dorset Street after that,she could not have seen Kelly and Aman, who,according to Hutchinson's statement must have reached the court about 2.15,and then according to Hutchinson,stopped at the entrace for 3 minutes before entering the court .


                    I am still questioning memory in general,and specifically that of Hutchinson.Again it was you that introduced two police into the arguement,for what purpose I do not understand,because their opinions decide nothing.


                    You that introduced the term Format. W as that a term widely used by the police at that time?I think not.Certainly there were instructional manuals,or department policy instructions for dealing with situations,but how does that affect the description tendered by Hutchinson,and entered by Badham?Or affect the state of Hutchinson's recall abilities.W hat has telegrams to do with things?Nothing at all,but you waste time and space introducing them into the discussion.


                    I wasn't asking about the phrase,"Can be identified".It was a comment made by Hutchinson.If as you say,it was more likelyBadham's choice of words,then w hat do you think were the words used by Hutchinson?,and why do you believe Badham needed to rephrase?


                    We do not know what questions were asked by Badham,and Ivé no idea why you show a suspect form.Hutchinson was interviewed by Badham as a witness.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      Jon,
                      What time do you wish to to state Lewis arrived? Was it before 2.30 or after?
                      Where does this "after" come from?

                      If as you wrote,she passed as the church clock struck the half hour,a nd turned into Dorset Street after that,
                      The clock didn't strike as she passed - where did you get that from?
                      Perhaps this is why your sequence does not fit, you keep introducing details that are wrong.

                      Lewis said she passed the clock so she noticed the time, but she doesn't say what that time was as she passed the clock.
                      She also says she was at No.2 at 2:30.
                      The Spitalfields clock struck on the half hour, so this tells us how she knew it was 2:30 when she was in No. 2. We can safely assume the Keylars did not have a clock, nor Lewis a watch.
                      So, she must have heard the clock 'chime' at 2:30.

                      I am still questioning memory in general,and specifically that of Hutchinson.Again it was you that introduced two police into the arguement,for what purpose I do not understand,because their opinions decide nothing.
                      Opinions from professionals tend to be more important than those of non-professionals.

                      You that introduced the term Format. W as that a term widely used by the police at that time?I think not.Certainly there were instructional manuals,or department policy instructions for dealing with situations,but how does that affect the description tendered by Hutchinson,and entered by Badham?Or affect the state of Hutchinson's recall abilities.W hat has telegrams to do with things?Nothing at all,but you waste time and space introducing them into the discussion.
                      It is not difficult to understand why the description is given the way it was when we know the form & format used by police.

                      I wasn't asking about the phrase,"Can be identified".It was a comment made by Hutchinson.If as you say,it was more likelyBadham's choice of words,then w hat do you think were the words used by Hutchinson?,and why do you believe Badham needed to rephrase?
                      You mean like Hutch saying, "I think I could identify him again", so Badham wrote, "Can be identified"?
                      Why does it matter?

                      We do not know what questions were asked by Badham,and Ivé no idea why you show a suspect form.Hutchinson was interviewed by Badham as a witness.
                      It's not a 'Suspect' form, it was a Description Form.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jon,

                        What is quite what you meant?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Jon you seem to be getting very irrational.
                          She was already in when the clock struck 2.30 Where is an official reference for that statement?First time I have heard that claim.

                          You ask what time were they stood in the passage.Who were stood in the passage?If you mean Kelly and aman,I do not remember anyone stating they stood in the passage.Hutchinson says stood outside at the court entrance for three minutes.Is this another unconfirmed presumption of yours.


                          Who are the non professionals Jon,and why would they be inferior to the people you mentioned.Many persons of professional status have questioned Hutchinson's reliability.Are we to dismiss their opinions because they were not policemen?


                          If Hutchinson had uttered the words you posted,why would not Badham have entered it in full?.He was after all a professional policman.What advantage would there be in shortening the phrase,and if your so called format was a police procedure at that time,what else was abbreviated or changed.Perhaps the whole Whitechapel investigation was format flavoured.


                          What we now need is Format hunters.Any takers?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Hi Jon,

                            What is quite what you meant?

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Good morning Simon.
                            An extract from the press at the time, or a quote from a personal memo by an official? Or maybe from a book written in the late 19th, early 20th century from someone who knew?
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              Jon you seem to be getting very irrational.
                              She was already in when the clock struck 2.30 Where is an official reference for that statement?First time I have heard that claim.
                              You only need to read what she says in her inquest testimony.
                              " I heard the clock strike half past three"
                              Which tells us the clock struck on the half-hour, EVERY half-hour.

                              So, when she said:
                              "I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning".
                              AT HER HOUSE, Harry, not on my way to her house.
                              Lewis was already at No.2 when the clock struck 2:30 am.

                              What we do not know is the time she arrived, or how long Lewis had been at No.2 before the clock struck 2:30.
                              She did say she passed the Spitalfields church (clock), "about 2:30", so we can assume she can't have been at No.2 very long before she heard the clock strike on the half-hour, barely minutes?

                              Was that difficult, Harry?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post

                                You ask what time were they stood in the passage.Who were stood in the passage?If you mean Kelly and aman,I do not remember anyone stating they stood in the passage.Hutchinson says stood outside at the court entrance for three minutes.Is this another unconfirmed presumption of yours.
                                I asked you because you seem to think it contests the theory.
                                Clearly it doesn't because we have no idea what the time was, so why mention it?
                                It has no relevance.


                                Who are the non professionals Jon,and why would they be inferior to the people you mentioned.Many persons of professional status have questioned Hutchinson's reliability.Are we to dismiss their opinions because they were not policemen?
                                I understand what you mean by memory problems - I told you this already :-) the professionals were Abberline & Stewart Evans.


                                If Hutchinson had uttered the words you posted,why would not Badham have entered it in full?.He was after all a professional policman.What advantage would there be in shortening the phrase,and if your so called format was a police procedure at that time,what else was abbreviated or changed.Perhaps the whole Whitechapel investigation was format flavoured.
                                Do you know the Casebook poster Bridewell? (a policeman). He explained why the interviewer will rephrase the statement of a witness.
                                I told you already, for clarity and brevity.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X