Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    I don't believe that Aussie George was the right Hutchinson. Speaking personally, I KNOW he wasn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    What's the relevant bit, Herlock? I've scrolled through several articles, but can't find any connection to Hutchinson.
    Sorry Gareth, I didnít look at it in detail as I was just about to head out. I only posted it because it mentions a 6 part tv show which I thought might have provided some kind of link to, or information about, the Hutchinson interview.

    Apoligies to all if I gave the impression that Iíd made a great discovery. It wasnít my intention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Ugh. Give it a rest, Ben. It's not an 'extraordinary thing' in the least.

    You keep repeating a bad argument that grotesquely misuses and misunderstands Abberline’s March 1903 interview in order to make a false point about Hutchinson. Such a misuse pegs you as a “Suspectologist” rather than a historian. Is that what you want to be?

    Hutchinson is NOT a ‘glaring ommision’ because he was not relevant to the point Abberline was making. Hutch is not mentioned, just as Schwartz, Lawende, Long and everyone else is not mentioned. They are all “glaring” omissions because Abberline is not discussing individual witnesses or weighing their strengths and weaknesses. He merely makes a very brief point about a peaked cap and 'foreign looking' suspects. As Helena Wojtczak has amply demonstrated, the interview Abberline gave to the PMG reporter (who was almost certainly his friend John Collins) was in direct response to the Daily Chronicle piece of the previous day, March 23rd that described Klosowski wearing a peaked cap. That’s it. Full stop. And it is undeniable because the PMG references the Daily Chronicle explicitly at the start of the interview. Hutchinson mentioned no such peaked cap, ergo he was not relevant.

    By the way, Abby is wrong. Hutchinson did use the phrase "foreigner" to describe his suspect; he did so in the interview he gave to the Central News. So, in this sense, Abberline DOES reference Hutchinson in the PMG interview; he lumps him in with everyone else that had described the Ripper as a "foreigner." So again, there is no 'glaring' ommission. Had the article been about Deeming, the omission might have been real. It was not about Deeming. It was about Klosowski of the alleged naval cap.

    As for Senise, do you accept that George Hutchinson was in the Royal Navy for a minimum of two years? Or do you believe that Senise misidentified Hutchinson? Just curious. Edward Stow on Howard Brown's site has made some illuminating posts on this issue. Have his points ever been disputed? It seems pretty obvious that the Australian Hutchinson could not have been the 'groom' and 'casual laborer' described in November 1888 if he was a navy man of long standing. Have a great weekend.
    Hi RJ
    Hutch is not mentioned, just as Schwartz, Lawende, Long and everyone else is not mentioned.

    not mentioned by name-but surely their suspect peaked cap man is-which is point Abberline was making. the ripper and "the peaked cap he is said to have worn". aman was not wearing a peaked cap. Its not rocket science RJ and it is a glaring mismatch as well as an omission that Abberline dosnt mention hutchs suspect in any way or hutch for that matter-this supposed great witness.

    By the way, Abby is wrong. Hutchinson did use the phrase "foreigner" to describe his suspect; he did so in the interview he gave to the Central News.

    the best way to do history (as you keep saying) RJ is to go with police statements over newspaper accounts. everyone knows that. and in his police statement nada about foreigner-just a jewish man.

    It was about Klosowski of the alleged naval cap.
    of which Aman was not wearing.
    As for Senise, do you accept that George Hutchinson was in the Royal Navy for a minimum of two years? Or do you believe that Senise misidentified Hutchinson? Just curious. Edward Stow on Howard Brown's site has made some illuminating posts on this issue. Have his points ever been disputed? It seems pretty obvious that the Australian Hutchinson could not have been the 'groom' and 'casual laborer' described in November 1888 if he was a navy man of long standing.

    I think Stephen nailed the right hutch-looks just like the descriptions, leaves around the time right after the last ripper murder, had sex crime and seems to have a connection to the navy or at least an "able seaman" (peaked cap).

    theres no reason he couldn't also have been a groom or labourer also and or after being a sailor. Or he could have lied about those professions.


    have a great weekend!

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    I don`t know about this, Abby. He could have left the room as a client, observing how to open the door, and sneaked back in as the killer, knowing Mary was alone in bed.
    hi jon
    but why-he already had her right where he wanted her. leaving would risk all sorts of problems in losing his prey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Perhaps the blotchy looking face was induced by alcohol intake with someone with high blood pressure

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X