Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    With three completely different Hutchinson signatures on it ....
    Too right I have issues with it
    Having issues with evidence is fine, but to say it therefore doesn't exist seems somewhat disingenuous.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ben View Post
      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 ....
      His duty is to pursue his assignment. Which, in the scenario proposed here, is to police the market, for the market, on market property, in a time period designated by the market.

      So what exactly do you contend was conveniently absent from the statement, but which came up in the “interrogation by Abberline” then?
      I think it is necessary to accept if Abberline claimed he conducted an interrogation, that he will write down all Hutchinson's responses.
      What Abberline learned is open to debate, what is not defensible is to believe he wrote nothing down, or did not learn anything more than what was on the initial statement.
      You're the dab-hand at speculation, go ahead amuse yourself.


      ......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.
      You keep repeating the "early morning time of death", yet have trouble finding sufficient examples. This is another case of manning the trenches to defend an argument.

      It might interest you to know that the Sunday press is where we first read a more assertive theory of an early morning murder.
      In a column with a subtitle - Result of Medical Examination, we read a telling conclusion.
      "The conclusion arrived at was that the murdered woman had undoubtedly been dead for some hours when first discovered, and that in all probability the crime was committed as early as two or three o'clock in the morning".
      Lloyds Weekly News, 11 Nov. 1888.

      Is it just coincidence then that it was on this same morning that Hutchinson decided to relay his story to a constable?

      ....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.
      Like I said, eyeing him up for a robbery is quite feasible. And, possibly another reason why he was reluctant to come forward at first. He might have had criminal intent on his mind.
      All conjecture aside, if you find yourself at a crime scene, around the time of a murder, the more obvious response by anyone is to make yourself scarce.
      It was common knowledge that to be incriminated in a crime you really had to be found to be present. Once an individual put several streets between themselves and the crime, the police would have a difficult time connecting you with the crime.
      Coming forward is that last thing you would do.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        People outside chatting,or men idly standing around outside buildings,might have been a familier sight in Dorset street,in the warmer summer nights,,but on a cold inclement November morning between 2 and 3 am? Are you serious Jon?
        If it isn't too cold to be out, and clearly it wasn't. Then a person with nowhere to stay for the night, has no choice.

        Many criminals,including killers,have been allowed to leave after an initial interview,.....
        Correct, and that is what Hutchinson did. His initial interview was with Badham, and he walked out.

        ......we do not know what the thoughts of Aberline might have been,or what verbal expressions of guilt or innocence were expressed afterwards.
        You don't think he would put any reservations in writing to his superiors, just in case this turned out to be the killer?
        I'm sure he would.


        You Jon base almost all your arguements of a trustworthy Hutchinson on one word written by Aberline,opinion.A word that conveys a message that Aberline was not completely convinced.
        Would you leave a degree of ambiguity about a person's truthfulness, in a report to your superior?
        I think you would be called in to make your report 'clear,' don't you?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
          ....
          And yet with Kelly ,the only one of the three who really was unrecognizable you seem to have no hesitation in accepting Barnett's 'peep through the window' ..... not for me , sorry
          Hi P.S.

          Barnett's testimony at the inquest, "I have seen the body. I identify her by the ear (hair?) and the eyes. I am positive it is the same woman."

          Is due to the fact the witnesses were paraded through Shoreditch Church before the inquest began where the body was laid in it's box. So the body had been cleaned up and made as presentable as it could be.
          Whatever was seen through the window on Friday morning is not relevant at this point for identification purposes.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Barnett wasn't going by the photo, but would have performed the identification at the mortuary after Kelly had been cleaned, and possibly stitched up. .....
            Sorry, didn't mean to echo your argument.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Having issues with evidence is fine, but to say it therefore doesn't exist seems somewhat disingenuous.
              The statement exists
              Whether a man called George Hutchinson existed is quite different .
              There's a possibility that a man using that name gave a statement .That it was a pseudonym appears inescapable as he struggled to remember his signature from one page to another .
              You would then have to question what drove a man to enter a police station at the height of the murders , give an elaborate , unbelievable statement accompanied with a false name minutes after the inquest closed .
              Until his discovery there also remains a possibility that no such person existed and we are looking at a police ploy (possibly in the hope of smoking out an accomplice ) .... so many possibilities but what we shouldn't be doing is taking things on faith because it was written or said by a policeman .
              Policing was very different pre 1980 than it is today .
              And on the subject of the word of the police .... why is it that ripperology defends Abberline's word forever and at the same time deny the existence of the Hanbury Street coins confirmed under oath by Reid at the McKenzie inquest .
              Double standards dependent upon which outcome ripperology wants
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                There is no evidence to suggest that Barnett visited the mortuary at all other than a suggestion in the times where the reporter wasn't actually quoting .
                Possibly, witnesses may not have accompanied the jury. It's difficult to look when the Press Search is still not working.
                As principal witness, Barnett being her companion, the police will take him to the mortuary to identify the body as part of his statement.
                There really is no-one else available.

                Looking through a broken window into a dark room is not acceptable, so there's no point in thinking this was how the I.D. was done.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Hi P.S.

                  Barnett's testimony at the inquest, "I have seen the body. I identify her by the ear (hair?) and the eyes. I am positive it is the same woman."

                  Is due to the fact the witnesses were paraded through Shoreditch Church before the inquest began where the body was laid in it's box. So the body had been cleaned up and made as presentable as it could be.
                  Whatever was seen through the window on Friday morning is not relevant at this point for identification purposes.
                  Hi Jon
                  You've popped your own (hair) in the brackets ? As you know full well that wasn't in the official transcript .

                  And no , witnesses weren't taken to Shoreditch at all ... the Jury and the reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette unless you find evidence to the contrary .
                  In fact even up until the evening of the 15th the public were not allowed access to the coffin as this snippet from the evening news of the 16th shows ...

                  SYMPATHY IN LONDON
                  As an instance of the widespread sympathy with the unfortunate victims in the East-end which prevails throughout this great metropolis of strangers, it may be stated that last evening a young lady took to Mr. M'Carthy a beautiful floral wreath which she had made for this the purpose, and desired to place it personally on the coffin of the deceased. In consequence of the funeral arrangements not having been completed, this, she was informed, she could not do.

                  There is zero evidence that anybody who could possibly have known Kelly witnessed the body outside of 13 Miller's Court

                  Nick
                  You can lead a horse to water.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Sorry, didn't mean to echo your argument.
                    I think of it as "seconded" rather than an echo, Jon. Thanks!
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                      So much supposition there it's difficult to know where to begin
                      Not supposition, but common sense and an awareness that identification at a mortuary was the norm, if not standard procedure.
                      There is no evidence to suggest that Barnett visited the mortuary
                      You think they were going to shove his face into the minced-up remains on the bed? I know the Victorian era was tough, but they weren't barbarians.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • “His duty is to pursue his assignment. Which, in the scenario proposed here, is...”
                        ...to track down the most wanted man in history, Jon, the importance and urgency of which instantly superseding any other line of police investigation, such as whether or not someone might be tempted to steal someone else’s hat from the market.

                        ”What Abberline learned is open to debate, what is not defensible is to believe he wrote nothing down, or did not learn anything more than what was on the initial statement”
                        Quite so, but any information of interest that Abberline managed to extract, beyond that contained in the statement, ended up in his accompanying report, such as the detail that he had known Kelly for three years, and that he was surprised at seeing a man so well-dressed in her company “which caused him to follow them”.

                        “You keep repeating the "early morning time of death", yet have trouble finding sufficient examples. This is another case of manning the trenches to defend an argument.”
                        Alright then, “reports which strongly indicated an early morning, small hours time of death, in common with all other ripper victims”. Better? The point being that Hutchinson could not have failed to read these reports if he was following newspaper coverage as you suggest, thus totally nullifying any excuse not to come forward immediately thereafter and relating his early morning, small-hours experience involving his three-year acquaintance.

                        But now you’re suggesting that it required Hutchinson getting his hands on a copy of Lloyds Weekly News, and satisfying himself that the “medical examination” tallied with the time of his sighting, to finally motivate him into getting off his lazy arse and relating his evidence (which, regardless of timing and regardless of conflicting reports, he should have informed the police about the moment he learned of the murder).

                        Honestly Jon, if I was Hutchinson I think I would rather be labelled a serial killer than have such ludicrous non-rationale posthumously ascribed to me.

                        No, “eyeing him up for robbery” is not very “feasible” because anyone with such expensive looking clothes and accessories so ostentatiously on display would have BEEN robbed long before Hutchinson had even clapped eyes on him.

                        “Coming forward is that last thing you would do.”
                        Well how wonderfully sensible and prudent of “you”, whoever that’s supposed to refer to. What I’m interested in, though, are the actions and behavioural traits of known serial offenders who have come forward as “witnesses” when they feared (rationally or otherwise) an impending link being established between them and the crime scene or victim, and who have attempted to deflect suspicion in a convenient false direction.

                        “You” might well disapprove of their strategies, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

                        Finally, are you seriously suggesting that the homeless of Victorian Whitechapel had “no choice” but to remain in a stationary, upright position on the exposed streets?

                        All the best,
                        Ben
                        Last edited by Ben; 07-21-2018, 09:08 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                          With three completely different Hutchinson signatures on it ....
                          They're not "completely different". Only one capital "H" differs materially, and that can be due to a number of reasons: e.g. a variation caused by a "cold start"; rustiness/lack of practice in writing his signature; or perhaps - has anyone considered this? - he simply wrote, rather than signed, his name on the first page. When I write my name in cursive script, neither the "G" at the start of my forename, the "H" at the start of my middle name, nor the "W" at the start of my surname look much like their equivalents in my signature, and the other letters differ slightly too.

                          I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that Hutchinson signed all three pages of the statement. There's no mystery here, ladies and gentlemen. Time to move along.
                          Last edited by Sam Flynn; 07-21-2018, 09:04 AM.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Not supposition, but common sense and an awareness that identification at a mortuary was the norm, if not standard procedure.
                            You think they were going to shove his face into the minced-up remains on the bed? I know the Victorian era was tough, but they weren't barbarians.
                            It's all we've got a though .
                            We could all suppose anything we want to but the evidence suggests that nobody went anywhere near the coffin .
                            We have press reports on the 12th of people turning up at Shoreditch but being refused entry .
                            We have the girl with the wreath some six days after the murder denied permission to place a wreath on the coffin ..... why ? Only took someone to make sure the lid was closed .

                            Barnett had already said it was her by peeping through the window ..... seems that was deemed sufficient .
                            As I say ..... identified by location , nothing more unless someone comes up with actual evidence to suggest otherwise rather than supposition
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • Hi RJ,

                              It’s not impossible that I’ve confused the year. It’s been a while since I looked at the Green River case. Apologies if so.

                              John Douglas had the following to say on Ridgway’s “proactive technique”:

                              "...We indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

                              It was his own proactive technique."


                              Apparently the victim in question was Carol Ann Christensen who did, as it would later transpire, know Ridgeway personally.

                              I concede a difference with the Hutchinson scenario insofar as Ridgway was already known to the police when he came forward, whereas Hutchinson ostensibly was not. Far more significant to my mind, however, are the similarities; injecting himself into the investigation, and knowing the deceased personally, the latter’s body having been “posed differently to the others”.

                              Ridgeway was motivated into coming forward because he feared an incriminating link being made between himself and the victim, just as several authors have proposed with regard to Hutchinson and Kelly.

                              All the best,
                              Ben
                              Last edited by Ben; 07-21-2018, 09:10 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                They're not "completely different". Only one capital "H" differs materially, and that can be due to a number of reasons: e.g. a variation caused by a "cold start"; rustiness/lack of practice in writing his signature; or perhaps - has anyone considered this? - he simply wrote, rather than signed, his name on the first page. When I write my name in cursive script, neither the "G" at the start of my forename, the "H" at the start of my middle name, nor the "W" at the start of my surname look much like their equivalents in my signature.

                                I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that Hutchinson signed all three pages of the statement. There's no mystery here, ladies and gentlemen. Time to move along.
                                I disagree
                                If you have a form where you are asked to write or print your name as opposed to sign then it's block capitals
                                Page 1 is a signature apart from a wonderfully artistic capital H
                                Page 2 (rge) disappears off George and the H becomes bog standard .
                                Page 3 (rge) makes a return and the H looks as if it was deliberately made to be 'messy'

                                You don't doubt that someone would sign three different signatures on three sheets of paper ,that's your choice ,but we're not talking a slip of a pen here are we ? if the value of the Hutchinson statement is central to your theory then you will convince yourself ..... convincing the majority though is another thing entirely .

                                You are free to move along Sam .... doesn't mean others are obliged to follow .
                                Plenty of mystery I'm afraid.
                                Denying it will not remove it
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X