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

    Hutchinson is not a dubious witness. Ill conceived accusations by modern theorists have tried to make him look dubious.
    That's the truth of it.
    But the content of his statement is dubious

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Jon
      Aberline's opinion leaves room for doubt,as does all opinions.Had he said I am convinced of the man's innocence,that would imply a more greater consideration of guilt based on corrorberatian of some kind,,and had he said I am convinced of the man's innocence because his story has been checked and found to be true in all repects,that would have been convincing,but of course he stopped at opinion only. 1 out of 3 for you,not a convincing score.


      Surely we have more information to work on than was available on the evening of the 12th when Aberline interviewed Hutchinson.What of all the newspaper articles that you keep referring to?


      Then there is the use by Aberline of the word interrogation,but i'll leave that for another time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Jon
        Aberline's opinion leaves room for doubt,as does all opinions.Had he said I am convinced of the man's innocence,that would imply a more greater consideration of guilt based on corrorberatian of some kind,,and had he said I am convinced of the man's innocence because his story has been checked and found to be true in all repects,that would have been convincing,but of course he stopped at opinion only. 1 out of 3 for you,not a convincing score.


        Surely we have more information to work on than was available on the evening of the 12th when Aberline interviewed Hutchinson.What of all the newspaper articles that you keep referring to?


        Then there is the use by Aberline of the word interrogation,but i'll leave that for another time.
        Whether or not the police believed Hutchinson at the time or not is irrelevant, they had to believe him. They could not disprove anything he was saying with regards to what he allegedly saw, and to publicly call him a liar would have done them no favors with the press, or the public, who by this time had lost confidence in the police and their ability to catch the killer.

        However what they believed off the record is another matter.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Really good discussion/debate regarding Hutchison here folks.
          Can anyone put a good photo of Mr H on the boards please. I'm still a stickler for accurate descriptions of potential suspects.

          If Mary was so hard to identify after her death- Barnett could only id her by her hair and what was left of her eyes. Was Walter Dew brought in to have a look too? He claimed to know her by sight, so surly he would have given a positive Id. I'm asking this because so many people claim to know Mary, and saw her before and after she was supposed to be dead but no-one is 100% positive.
          Is there a chance that Mary really did survive and that the person who died was indeed a friend she allowed to use the room? It's been said many times before Hutch gave us a million and one things about his rich Jewish man, but could only tell us that Mary asked to borrow sixpence. He did not give a description of Mary- what she was wearing, how she sounded. So I wonder, if Hutch really knew Mary as well as he claimed he did. She could have been any woman walking down the street asking passers by for money. I think Hutch only came forward to clear himself from the fact that it was him loitering over the road from Dorset Street and the rest is made up folly.
          Not forgetting if the Ripper was caught, the whole of the British Isles would be heading for London on the day of the hanging. Don't think Hutch really wanted to be implicated in that even for an extra bit of fame.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
            Really good discussion/debate regarding Hutchison here folks.
            Can anyone put a good photo of Mr H on the boards please. I'm still a stickler for accurate descriptions of potential suspects.

            If Mary was so hard to identify after her death- Barnett could only id her by her hair and what was left of her eyes. Was Walter Dew brought in to have a look too? He claimed to know her by sight, so surly he would have given a positive Id. I'm asking this because so many people claim to know Mary, and saw her before and after she was supposed to be dead but no-one is 100% positive.
            Is there a chance that Mary really did survive and that the person who died was indeed a friend she allowed to use the room? It's been said many times before Hutch gave us a million and one things about his rich Jewish man, but could only tell us that Mary asked to borrow sixpence. He did not give a description of Mary- what she was wearing, how she sounded. So I wonder, if Hutch really knew Mary as well as he claimed he did. She could have been any woman walking down the street asking passers by for money. I think Hutch only came forward to clear himself from the fact that it was him loitering over the road from Dorset Street and the rest is made up folly.
            Not forgetting if the Ripper was caught, the whole of the British Isles would be heading for London on the day of the hanging. Don't think Hutch really wanted to be implicated in that even for an extra bit of fame.
            There are no photos of Hutchinson as his existence is as much of a mystery as Mary Kelly .He's never been successfully identified and all three of his signatures on the statement sheets are different , also bear no resemblence to signatures found of other George Hutchinson's found on census details in later years .

            The body was supposedly identified by 'eyes and ear' (single) which is interesting as according to the Bond report both ears were 'partially severed' leaving us to question was she supposely identified by a part of ear still attached to the body or not .
            The idea that it was hair is nothing more than ripperology trying to find explanation for the impossible , there was no ambiguity at the time .... it was 'ear' not 'hair'
            The identification was farcical
            It was identification by location and if there was a body that was identifiable you have to ask why Maxwell wasn't asked to confirm that she was the person seen by her 😉
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
              Exactly! Plus, the 1891 census has Joseph Barnett's brother living at...... the Victorian Home. Does that automatically mean he lived there in '88'? Obviously not, but its definitely a piece of circumstantial evidence if he was living there in Oct./Nov. of 1888 pointing towards Hutch.
              I think her old boyfriend Flemming was staying there too.


              The Victoria house is a stones throw away from mary kellys place and seems people there knew her-easy place for hutch to pick up info on her!

              Comment


              • “It's a three-day delay because, IIRC, you do not accept that he spoke to a policeman on Sunday morning. That would make it only two days.”
                It’s a three-day delay because I assumed, evidently with some nativity, that no modern researcher worth his skin would be so cretinous as to accept that at the height of the murders; at the very zenith of the most significant manhunt in London’s history, that a member of London’s finest would have reacted with such total indifference to Hutchinson’ story - no escorting him to police station, no alerting of his superiors, not even making a note of his name and address.

                Please try to exercise just a modicum of common sense with this one. Has it ever occurred to you why Hutchinson related such a transparent whopper to the press and not the police? Because Abberline would have asked him precisely where and when this policeman encounter occurred, with a view to cross-referencing any answer given with the meticulously recorded beat times for patrolling constables.

                Even if a patrolling or fixed beat copper was predisposed, for whatever reason, to be negligent or complacent, he wouldn’t have dared risked being so in those circumstances, as he know he could be tracked down by his superiors. It is against this obvious reality that Hutchinson’s ridiculous claim to have informed a policeman (who totally ignored him) are pitted.

                Any wonder then that the police discredited Hutchinson shortly after his unsanctioned account appeared in the press?

                With the above clarification in mind, allow me to amend my original summary of your argument to:

                Jon’s bizarre argument is that despite coverage of an early morning time of death being extensive from Saturday morning onwards, Hutchinson stuck rigidly to his guns in deciding that the later morning version must be correct, thus justifying his failure to inform the police of his crucial evidence, the impact of which could easily have resulted in the trail of the killer (of this three year acquaintance) growing cold.

                UNTIL!...some time on Sunday when Hutchinson suddenly does an about-turn and concludes that all those reports of an early time of death must be correct after all. So off he trots to find a policeman, who responds by ignoring him, failing to escort him to the station or even make a note of the informant’s name.

                Sorry Jon, but of all the “explanations” I’ve read for Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier, yours is by far the trickiest to get one’s head around. Marginally more plausible was the suggestion that Hutchinson had accidentally locked himself in a Romford stable!

                It’s the mindsets you project onto Hutchinson that make me quite giddy. Even if he clung with irrational tenacity to the reports of a later morning time of death, on what planet would his account be in the slightest bit irrelevant or unimportant? Hutchinson claimed to have left the court at 3.00am, at which point Kelly and Astrakhan were still inside #13 Miller’s Court. Are you seriously suggesting that upon reading of a later morning time of death (ignoring or unaccountably overlooking numerous reports of an earlier one), he concluded the man he left Kelly with couldn’t possibly have killed her a few hours later??

                This is decidedly poor reasoning from you, Jon, and no amount of quoting and bold-highlighting multiple press articles will detract from the numerous fallacious you espouse.

                “It isn't that Hutchinson selectively read only the late morning reports. It's that they far outnumber the 'Kennedy' early morning theories.”
                Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson gathered about him every newspaper available throughout Friday and Saturday, then sat down and counted the number of references to a later morning time of death versus the number referring to an earlier “on murder” cry, deciding that whichever version had the most press mentions was the “winner”, thus influencing his decision as to whether or not to come forward?

                This is craziness, Jon.

                Nobody reading the papers (most people just stick to the one, incidentally) could have avoided reading accounts of “murder” cry indicating a small hours time of death for Kelly, which means that any innocent party who witnessed a Kelly-related event at about that time would obviously have alerted the police immediately.
                Last edited by Ben; 07-20-2018, 08:00 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                  The body was supposedly identified by 'eyes and ear' (single) which is interesting as according to the Bond report both ears were 'partially severed' leaving us to question was she supposely identified by a part of ear still attached to the body or not .
                  The idea that it was hair is nothing more than ripperology trying to find explanation for the impossible , there was no ambiguity at the time .... it was 'ear' not 'hair'
                  Some papers, such as the Star, reporter ears (plural).

                  However, at least two reports mention hair;

                  Echo 12 Nov
                  I identified her (he added) by the hair and eyes.

                  IPN 17 Nov
                  I have seen the body of the deceased, and I identify it by the hair and eyes.

                  Morning Advertiser 13 Nov
                  I have seen the body of the deceased, and I identify it by the hair and eyes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                    Some papers, such as the Star, reporter ears (plural).

                    However, at least two reports mention hair;

                    Echo 12 Nov
                    I identified her (he added) by the hair and eyes.

                    IPN 17 Nov
                    I have seen the body of the deceased, and I identify it by the hair and eyes.

                    Morning Advertiser 13 Nov
                    I have seen the body of the deceased, and I identify it by the hair and eyes
                    Indeed, and "hair" sounds a bit like "ear", especially when pronounced by an h-dropping Cockney. Also, as her long hair was one of Kelly's distinguishing features, it would be an obvious thing by which to identify her. Barnett undoubtedly recognised her by 'er 'air and eyes, and this was misheard by some reporters.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • I particularly enjoy it when Ben and similar Hutchinson fans claim with great self-confidence and bravado that the "profilers" are on their side, and all their doubters are secret admirers of Stephen Knight.

                      The following is from the actual profile:

                      "We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information."

                      F.B.I. agent John E. Douglas, "Profile of Jack the Ripper." Quantico Virginia, 1988.

                      Should I repeat that for Ben, since he claims ownership of the profilers?

                      "We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information." The horse's mouth. The F.B.I. Profile.

                      Sounds like the top profiler is calling b.s. on your main line of argument, Ben.

                      And, of course, the same claim that the "profilers are on our side!" is also used by the Lechmere boys, the Barnett boys, the Bury Boys, etc.

                      That ought to tell us something.

                      I only have one submission.

                      I submit that dapper little Peter Kurten was more akin to Hutchinson's suspect than he was akin to Hutchinson.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jon,

                        I don’t understand your repeated references to disunity amongst those who are suspicious of Hutchinson. What’s your evidence for this? Do you mean that there are those who believe he lied, but didn’t murder anyone? Yes, Jon, there are, and I don’t recall this ever being the source of any consternation among those who recognise his merit as a suspect. All it underscores is that those who believe he told the squeaky-clean unblemished truth are perhaps in the minority these days.

                        Since this thread’s inception you’ve thrown in about five generic “Leave Britney Alone!” posts in which you rail against anyone who dares to criticise Hutchinson, complain about the supposed “differences” in their approaches, whilst assuring us that you’ve single-handedly demolished every argument any of them has ever made.

                        Sorry, Jon, but as the forgoing aptly illustrates, your imagined demolition tactics have a very long way to go.
                        Last edited by Ben; 07-20-2018, 08:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Hi RJ,

                          You've got to stop winding people up with your submissions.

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Hi RJ,

                            Douglas’s determination was based on his conclusion that the ripper was a disorganised offender, which in turn was based on the nature of the mutilations. In 1988 it was the conventionally accepted understanding that the killers who engaged in post-mortem evisceration on such a grotesque scale were the outwardly “crazy” ones. Since the profile was conducted, however, other serial killers were identified who had a penchant for just this type of crime scene activity, most notably the “organised” Andrei Chikatilo.

                            Other behavioural analysts and criminologists, such as Bob Keppel, do not agree that the killer was disorganised.

                            Interesting that you cite the 1988 profile, which ultimately angled for David Cohen, several more rungs down the social ladder than Hutchinson, and presumably even further away than Hutchinson is from your preferred type of ripper.

                            “I submit that dapper little Peter Kurten was more akin to Hutchinson's suspect than he was akin to Hutchinson.”
                            Fair enough, although I would counter-submit that the vast majority of prostitute serial killers - such as menially employed Sutcliffe, Shawcross and Ridgeway - have more in common with a local labourer than a pantomime villain.

                            It’s funny how resistant some people are to the commonsense deduction accepted by most; that the killer was, in all probability, an unknown nondescript local.

                            Comment


                            • Dr. Thomas Bond profiled the Whitechapel murderer—

                              “. . . He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis . . .”

                              FBI agent John E. Douglas concluded that the Ripper had an absent father and was raised by a domineering mother given to drink. His pent-up desires and emotions were expressed by lighting fires and torturing small animals. By perpetrating these acts, he discovered increased areas of dominance, power and control, and learned how to continue violent destructive acts without detection or punishment.

                              Professor Canter stated that Jack the Ripper felt himself at odds with society, was withdrawn and difficult to relate to, and may have been James Maybrick, alleged author of the Ripper diary.

                              When it comes to identifying Jack the Ripper, all this retro-analysis is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
                              Last edited by Simon Wood; 07-20-2018, 09:10 AM. Reason: spolling mistook
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                I particularly enjoy it when Ben and similar Hutchinson fans claim with great self-confidence and bravado that the "profilers" are on their side, and all their doubters are secret admirers of Stephen Knight.

                                The following is from the actual profile:

                                "We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information."

                                F.B.I. agent John E. Douglas, "Profile of Jack the Ripper." Quantico Virginia, 1988.

                                Should I repeat that for Ben, since he claims ownership of the profilers?

                                "We would not expect him to inject himself into the police investigation or provide bogus information." The horse's mouth. The F.B.I. Profile.

                                Sounds like the top profiler is calling b.s. on your main line of argument, Ben.

                                And, of course, the same claim that the "profilers are on our side!" is also used by the Lechmere boys, the Barnett boys, the Bury Boys, etc.

                                That ought to tell us something.

                                I only have one submission.

                                I submit that dapper little Peter Kurten was more akin to Hutchinson's suspect than he was akin to Hutchinson.
                                you mean John Douglas who thinks hes solved every case from the ripper to the mad bomber to the green river killer? LOL!
                                Give me a break. profiling is more art than science-they'll admit that.

                                The average casebooker knows more about the torsos and the ripper than douglas I can assure you that.

                                and having lived through the beltway sniper and how badly they jacked that profile up its best to take profiling with a grain of salt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X