Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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.



    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.
    bingo. well said Ben
    "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 Simon Wood View Post
      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.
      yup-and LOL-good one!
      "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 Sam Flynn View Post
        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.
        Absolutely!
        Her most distinguishing feature.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
          ....
          For me, he's the closest suspect yet. His whole police statement is just SOO difficult to buy. I mean seriously, his eyelashes?? Are you kidding me?!?!
          The man with Stride in the doorway of the Bricklayers Arms, was described by one of the customers in the pub:

          "The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie."

          If you have the Old Bailey website you can do a search on witness/suspects for "eyelashes". You will find it was a legitimate point of detail.
          Strange to us, certainly, but not strange for the times.

          Hutchinson did stare the man right in the face, it's not like he was on the other side of the street.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Not in my case, Jon. I find Hutchinson dubious, but I'm neither a Wroe-ist nor a Hintonist.
            The only potentially dubious part of Hutchinson's story, for me, is the waiting around for so long.
            Hutch did pay a great deal of attention to this man, detailing all his 'bling'. I find it quite reasonable to allow that he had robbery in mind when the man left Millers Court.

            The story he told police:
            " I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away".
            Begs the question, "why?"
            What was he going to do once this man came out?
            Abberline had to ask "why did you stay there for so long?"

            I don't believe the reason would be to ask Kelly if he can stay the night. That would be like me taking a day off work so someone could rest in my house. It isn't going to happen, she has bills to pay, food & drink to buy, and the night is the most lucrative time for her to earn money. Especially, as she has a bed in a private room.

            No, Kelly wouldn't be letting him stay. I would expect him to know that, if he knew her well enough. So what reason did he give Abberline?

            On the other hand, look at Mortimer in Berner St. she stood at her door just watching the world go by.
            Before radio's that is what the poorer people did for entertainment. So Hutchinson standing around, having nowhere else to stay, is not all that odd for the times.
            Even in the 1900's it was common for people to stand or put a chair outside on the street and just sit watching everyone else.
            Looking at certain aspects of this case from our 'modern' perspective can give a false impression. Today, we don't need to stand at the door for entertainment.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              Jon
              Aberline's opinion leaves room for doubt,as does all opinions.
              Yes, but among those who know as much as he did. Sadly, that generation has passed.
              Having people from our generation cast doubt on him based on the little we know is hardly the same as an equally well informed contemporary of Abberline's casting doubt on him.


              Had he said I am convinced of the man's innocence,....
              He's not likely to write that if Hutchinson was not officially a suspect, which he wasn't.
              Being the last 'known' person to see the victim alive means he could be a suspect. Not that he automatically is a suspect.
              That all depends on how the interrogation goes. If Abberline is not satisfied with his answers, they might suggest he stay the night - to help them with their enquiries
              If Abberline had the slightest doubt, he is not about to let the worst known killer in British history walk out, into the night.


              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?
              The police had all that too, plus all their own paperwork, which we don't have.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                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.
                The police do write about the number of time-wasting witnesses they have to deal with. We can only criticize the PC after we know from him (which we can't), as to what was actually said.
                So, once again you are jumping to conclusions.

                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?
                You keep forgetting, we don't have the whole story he gave to police. That is the interrogation by Abberline where every line of the statement will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
                I've tried to help you understand this in the past.
                Compare the brief statements given to police by witnesses in Millers Court, with their eventually more detailed testimony at the inquest.
                That's the difference a few searching questions can make.

                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.
                Certainly, he likely did just that.

                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.
                I think you are missing something that might be quite relevant.
                We don't know where Hutchinson saw that policeman on Sunday morning.
                Given that he was a labourer and out of work, and Spitalfields Market is just around the corner. It is quite possible Hutchinson was working at the market on Sunday morning - labouring.

                He can't just quit and go to the station when he feels like it.
                The constable may have been on duty at the market, so he can't leave either.
                You probably don't know this but constables were hired out to private businesses for a fee.

                As the Point-duty listing does not include Spitalfields Market, but we know a constable was stationed there (Chapman case). It is possible that this constable was working for the market, and as such can only advise Hutchinson to go to the station. He can't leave and take him there himself.

                Any wonder then that the police discredited Hutchinson shortly after his unsanctioned account appeared in the press?
                Still speculating he was discredited are we


                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.
                And here's me thinking it was you who had no intention of ever accepting it.

                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?
                This one.

                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??
                Obviously. Even Swanson himself was not convinced ("not clearly proved") that the Schwartz suspect (Broad-shouldered man) was the killer, as the sighting was only 15 minutes!!! before the murder of Stride.
                And you think 7 hours is important????
                S-e-v-e-n h-o-u-r-s ?
                Thats funny Ben, too funny.


                Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson gathered about him every newspaper available throughout Friday and Saturday,.....
                Why would he need to do that?
                The late morning assumption for a ToD was so widespread it didn't matter which paper he picked up - it was there right in front of him. Or, any fellow lodgers told him what they had read. Either way.

                This is craziness, Jon.
                It was your interpretation, not mine.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  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.
                  I believe Abberline's words "I am of opinion that his statement is true" are part of his internal CID report on the inquest and Hutchinson's evidence, not anything released to the public. As such, even if Abberline was unable to find any obvious falsehoods in the story, he would be perfectly justified in expressing a negative opinion to his superiors if he had any doubts about it's veracity.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Ben. Refresh my memory. Did Sutcliffe, Shawcross and Ridgeway inject themselves into the investigation?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      I believe Abberline's words "I am of opinion that his statement is true" are part of his internal CID report on the inquest and Hutchinson's evidence, not anything released to the public. As such, even if Abberline was unable to find any obvious falsehoods in the story, he would be perfectly justified in expressing a negative opinion to his superiors if he had any doubts about it's veracity.
                      And how do you know he didnt do that verbally, because I have no doubt that senior officers would have asked that question of him

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        And how do you know he didnt do that verbally, because I have no doubt that senior officers would have asked that question of him
                        What would be the point of misleading his superiors only to admit that he had lied to them?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          What would be the point of misleading his superiors only to admit that he had lied to them?
                          You have missed the point totally

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            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.
                            Ripperology at it's worst I'm afraid .Not liking the 'ear' for obvious reasons so let's make it up .
                            It was ear ... the inquest transcripts say ear , virtually every press account including the more thorough ones such as the telegraph and the times say ear , there really shouldn't be any doubt about this .
                            The reason being is that .... it wasn't questioned at the inquest .
                            As they are similar sounding then the reason why it wasn't questioned is fairly obvious .
                            Barnett must have been a hand gesture speaker like most of us are at times .... happens by instinct
                            People talk about the weather , they look up at the sky .... they mention going north and they point for no obvious reason ....... called hand gestures.
                            When Barnett said 'ear' he must have gestured towards his own ear .
                            If he hasn't it would have been questioned for clarity ..... obvious really
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • If you don't mind me saying P.S., it seems to me you are aware that Bond reported mutilation of the ears. In fact press accounts actually say her ears were cut off. So identification by the ears is unlikely, if not impossible.
                              Yet you insist this had to be the case, so you can call someone a liar?
                              That the body was only identified as Kelly because this was her room?

                              This argument just reads to me like a set-up.
                              You dismiss the obvious (hair) in order to promote a conspiracy - that the body was not that of Mary Kelly.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • “We can only criticize the PC after we know from him (which we can't), as to what was actually said.”
                                Not true, Jon.

                                We can criticise the PC, or rather conclude that Hutchinson made him up, on the basis that he would have been wretchedly derelict in his duty for failing even to make a note of Hutchinson and his story when the latter allegedly approached him on Sunday. It was not the responsibility of the bobby on beat to determine which witnesses were genuine and which weren’t.

                                We don’t have the whole story he told to the police. That is the interrogation by Abberline where every line of the statement will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
                                So what exactly do you contend was conveniently absent from the statement, but which came up in the “interrogation by Abberline” then?

                                GH: I told a policeman about it on Sunday.

                                FA: Really? That’s funny because this is the first I’ve heard of any of this. That must mean the policeman you spoke to essentially ignored you and took the matter no further, which is pretty fecking shocking given the circumstances. Where and when did you encounter this policeman? I would like a serious word with him immediately.

                                GH: Um, I think he was at the corner of....look! The Astrakhan man!

                                FA: Where!?!

                                GH: (Runs away)

                                A constable worth his salt would not have been content simply to “advise” a witness to go to the station and hope that he does so - that’s obviously nonsense, regardless of his other duties that day. At the very least, it would have been incumbent upon him to record Hutchinson’s key particulars in a notebook, and detain him until such time as an “available” officer could escort him to the nearest station. What you describe as acceptable behaviour for a uniformed police officer would, in fact, amount to borderline criminal negligence.

                                If you think it’s “too funny” for a witness to allow the trail of a murderer to grow cold, possibly to claim further victims thereafter, because he preferred to sit on his evidence for three crucial days rather than alerting the police the moment he learnt of the murder, by all means laugh away.

                                There is no possibility that a paper-reading, innocent Hutchinson justified his three-day failure to come forward on the grounds that the later morning (Maxwell) time of death was correct, in his mind, while the earlier version (Kennedy etc) must be wrong. If he read one, he cannot have failed to have read the other.

                                The late morning assumption for a ToD was so widespread it didn't matter which paper he picked up - it was there right in front of him.
                                As were reports of an earlier time of death, as suggested by the cry of “murder”, which did the rounds very extensively. Regardless of whether he was listening to rumour or reading an actual paper, it would have taken some extremely selective hearing/reading for him to “filter” out all references to an early morning time of death, in common with the other victims.

                                While I’m reassured that you’re opposed to the idea that Hutchinson hoped to stay the night with Kelly (but failed to divulge such an innocent explanation to Abberline), I’m more than a little troubled by your suggestion that Hutchinson hovered outside Miller’s Court in anticipation of Kelly and Astrakhan re-emerging, after walking 12 hours in the small hours from Romford in miserable conditions...for “entertainment”.

                                Really, Jon?

                                If he had been waylaid in Romford, and knew that his Whitechapel lodgings would close well in advance of his estimated arrival home, what was preventing him from engaging in a spot of prostitute-client watching in Romford if that was his thing (pervy voyeurism being the natural precursor to radio as a source of casual entertainment, argues Jon)?

                                I think you’ll find that “entertainment” was the very last thing on Hutchinson’s mind if he was truly homeless and had been trudging for hours.
                                Last edited by Ben; 07-20-2018, 06:21 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X