Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • The simple solution would have been to have Sarah Lewis look at Hutchinson, wonder why that got skipped.
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
      The simple solution would have been to have Sarah Lewis look at Hutchinson, wonder why that got skipped.
      We don't know that it did.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ben View Post
        Hi Jon,

        We might assume that a streetwise petty criminal such as Isaacs would have known a good deal better than to “toff up” in the heart of Whitechapel during that period in its history.
        It was his home Ben, why wouldn't he dress as he pleased?

        Common sense and a basic regard for his personal safety would have dictated where and when he played fancy dress.
        I think your view of a particular dress code required for personal safety in Whitechapel is more born of fiction than reality.

        No, I did not suggest that Isaacs lacked the money for the outfit. No money was required, that’s the whole point. It was so cheap and unconvincing that the fakery was easily exposed.
        You didn't?
        Ok, so someone posted this under your name....you might want to contact admin and lodge a complaint.
        "There is absolutely no evidence that Isaacs ever attired himself in a manner similar to the Astrakhan man; nor is it likely that he ever had the financial means to pull off even a vaguely convincing facsimile."

        Contradicting your Pall Mall Gazette article are the sources attesting to crowds of people that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office in Shoreditch. No, I do not have my sources to hand at present, but until I locate them - which shouldn’t take too long - by all means accuse me of lying or “guessing”.
        Will you need reminding of this commitment, on a daily basis?
        My bet is you are confused with the crowds for her funeral, not that you'll ever admit that though.

        I suggest a little more imagination may be required if you’re claiming that a non-descript labourer hanging around that general vicinity for a very short period would have caused a public outcry. That’s if he was there at all, which he need not have been.
        Public outcry?
        Just Sarah Lewis, she would have seen him standing there all alone, like he was on Friday morning. She is the one you suggest Hutch was waiting for wasn't it, so Hutch can pick up on any gossip to create this lying tale he decided to give to police?
        Have you recognised the error of your ways yet Ben?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          The onus is squarely upon you, then, to conjure up an at least moderately convincing scenario that would explain his decision to walk those 12 miles to Whitechapel knowing full well that his “usual” lodgings would close an hour before his anticipated arrival.
          Conjuring is your department Ben, from my point of view the reason's why & when he left Romford, are not relevant to his story.
          It doesn't matter where he came from that night. He did not say his "usual place" was closed before he met Kelly. So, it's not an issue.

          You made the exceptionally unconvincing suggestion that bad weather caused him to “shelter” somewhere en route.....
          Yep, silly me, English weather is always sunny & warm. I shoulda known you'd get me on that.

          Hutchinson was not “homeless”, Jon. If you accept the man at his word, he walked 12 miles in attempt to secure lodgings, which he had ample funds to pay for, according to you.
          He said he walked the streets all night, ie; homeless.
          Is that too complex?

          ....... why did he bother with the 12 mike walk at all if he knew that “option #1”, his usual place, wouldn’t have been open?
          Why do you choose to argue about a detail that cannot possibly be known?


          Well, I’m dying to know what the alternative could possibly be. I’m all ears, Jon. You do understand, presumably, that when Hutchinson initiated contact with the police on 12th, it was the very first time the police hierarchy had ever heard Hutchinson’s name in connection with the ripper investigation? Or are you now disputing even this?
          See, you just made another statement, as if it was fact. Yet you do not know if what you said is true.
          Another example of guessing Ben?

          If a “superior” had heard about Hutchinson on Sunday, he would have sent a detective immediately to the Victoria Home to track him down.
          Do you think Scotland Yard detectives were just sitting around waiting for suspect sightings to come in?


          I must have missed the part of this “education” that addressed the cases of witnesses who only warp out of “reluctant to get involved” mode the moment the public inquest closes - the same inquest at which it is revealed that the witness was himself “witnessed” by a passer-by on the night of the crime. It’s almost as if the two events were related.

          Nah, couldn’t be.
          Reducing your argument down to the finest detail in order to make it sound special - how often do we see this approach?
          Witnesses, in murder cases don't always come forward - live with it.
          Move on to the next argument.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ben View Post
            No, Joshua, but it might make you someone who hasn’t researched the subject of Victorian gas lighting in any great depth. A modern day gas lantern of the type used for outdoor activities is not “feeble”, by any means. Such items are mini Blackpool Towers compared to the naked flames under glass houses, which proliferated the streets of London in 1888.

            You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.

            I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.

            But I suppose some people are anxious for the ripper to be an exotic “interesting” creature, and so bypass these and other common sense considerations.
            So many assumptions in that reply, almost all of them wrong.

            Nevertheless, for my own amusement - I don't harbour any illusions about convincing you - I experimented tonight using my own camping lantern in the garden. And I hadn't even had a drink.
            Adjusting the lantern to match the brightness of a handy 24 watt lamp (yes, modern lanterns are adjustable so can appear as feeble as a Victorian street lamp), stuck it on a pole approximately 6 feet above head height and paced out 38 yards (where I ran into a fence), leaving my glamorous assistant under the lantern to pull various coloured hankies from her pockets in random order. Make of it what you will, but to me the light was more than bright enough to make red ones appear red (and the others not).

            For added excitement we repeated the experiment using just a candle in a jam-jar for illumination, and even this provided enough light to make out which hanky was red at over 30 yards, even when folded.

            This clearly shows (to me, if to no-one else) that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about Hutchinson's red handkerchief claim, whether he saw it from the end of Dorset Street, from outside Commercial St Chambers or as Kelly and her new companion walked past him at the Queen's Head.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ben View Post

              You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.
              25 ft Ben, you're shameless attempt to exaggerate a detail to try win another argument is well known by all the regulars.

              I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.
              Like I've said before, the black jacket, waistcoat & watch chain, were part of the description, so obviously visible. Which means the astrachan trimmed coat was very likely open, exposing a red pocket handkerchief.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                Lewis described the man she witnessed as 'short and stout.' The reporter described Hutchinson as of 'military appearance.' Does one usually use this latter phrase to describe someone that is short and stout? How do you know it is even the same man?
                Hi RJ

                For what it's worth, Lewis was a good distance away across the street, but the police, we might assume, sat face to face, if taking down his story.
                Being of 'military appearance' suggested to me Hutchinson looked presentable & tidy, possibly hair cut & any facial hair trimmed to look smart. His attire possibly well kept.
                Size & stature could be anything.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Being of 'military appearance' suggested to me Hutchinson looked presentable & tidy, possibly hair cut & any facial hair trimmed to look smart. His attire possibly well kept.
                  Size & stature could be anything.
                  Wasn't it compulsory at the time for anyone in the army to have a moustache?

                  Comment


                  • Not compulsory Joshua, no.
                    There are a good number of British soldier group photo's from the 19th century and while the moustache was popular, it was not worn by every soldier.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • RJ,
                      Two quite different situations,might be expected to provide two different answers.Lewis saw the man for a very short period of time,in poor light,wearing an overcoat.Short people in overcoats do tend to appear stouter(my observation).The reporter was able to study Hutchinson for a much more lengthy period of time,in much better light,and perhaps without a top coat.I have served under short stout senior officers,who presented a military appearance.

                      As I tend to view Huttchinson as suspect rather than as a witness,the length of time before putting in an appearance,can be assessed differently.From some coming forward immediately,to other varying lengths of time before doing so,depends on several factors.In Hutchinson's case the telling factor is that he decided to come forward in the guise of a witness,which could and should, have been done no later than Saturday.He could add nothing to his story by waiting

                      Comment


                      • Hi RJ,

                        I do love the way you continue to refer to my arguments as “unconvincing”, as though I had the remotest hope in hell of wresting away your apparently long held investment in Tumblety as the ripper by “convincing” you of someone else’s guilt.

                        I would obviously expect nothing less than total opposition to any attempt to “fit up Georgie” from anyone who believes the ostentatiously attired quack herbalist was the miscreant, and yet these days - and please don’t take this as an incendiary observation - the Tumbleyites do seem to be in a distinct minority in comparison to those who believe Hutchinson has a case to answer as a probable fibber, if not a serial killer.

                        I don’t know if Hutchinson was the killer, but there are strong indications that he was observed near a crime scene and later lied about his reasons for being there. No, it doesn’t automatically a slasher make, but it does make him the best of a less than perfect bunch, to my mind.

                        Anyway, moving on, why did Hutchinson claim to have waited 45 minutes? Well, one obvious answer is that he did precisely that, and admitted as much to allow for the possibility of other witnesses having seen him besides Lewis. Better to “legitimise” his presence for the full length of his vigil, rather than pretend he was there for a shorter period and risk being countered and exposed by yet another witness.

                        If the impetus for GH coming forward was the brief sighting by Sarah Lewis, which you claim it was, he could have told Badham that he had walked all day, was shut out for the night, was tired and rested a few minutes, and then moved on. Full stop
                        Not at all.

                        If Hutchinson’s intention was to vindicate his presence at the crime scene whilst simultaneously deflecting suspicion in a convenient Jewish direction, the above explanation would only have met one of those criteria. In addition, it would obviously have helped cement Astrakhan’s credentials as the likely ripper if Hutchinson could help “place” him in Kelly’s room for just the right amount of time to render unlikely the chances of anyone else arriving at Kelly’s doorstep. The likely impression Hutchinson sought to convey was “he was in there for a 45 minute, and he was still there when I left, so he was evidently staying there”.

                        It’s all very well suggesting that Hutchinson was permitted to “guess” the colour of the handkerchief - on the grounds, we are told, that red was such a common colour for handkerchiefs in those days (so was dark hair - maybe he guessed that too?). But we’re stretching credulity yet further now with the suggestion that he was able to discern an actual pattern on a tiny garment, at night time, from 120 feet away, with a little flame for illumination.

                        This is quite clearly impossible.

                        All the best,
                        Ben
                        Last edited by Ben; 07-30-2018, 06:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • “I think your view of a particular dress code required for personal safety in Whitechapel is more born of fiction than reality”
                          You think what you like, Jon. I can only urge common sense and seek to impress the bleedin’ obvious upon the frighteningly obstinate so many times.

                          I have no intention of reporting you to anyone. You quoted me correctly and I stand fully by my observation; Isaacs did not have the means to pull off anything like an “Astrakhan” level of apparent opulence, which is why his efforts were easily exposed as bogus and presumably laughed at.

                          As for the crowds outside the court, we can always start you off with this from your nemesis, The Echo:

                          At no inquest held in Whitechapel upon any of the victims of the East-end murderer has there been so much public interest shown, for from fully an hour before the announced time of holding the inquiry little knots of spectators, many unconnected with the case, gathered in front of the Shoreditch Town-hall, where the proceedings were opened by DR. MacDonald, touching the death of Mary Janet Kelly.

                          So your claim that Hutchinson would have been “all alone” if he was briefly in the vicinity of the town hall prior to the inquest, is instantly proven false, much like your “passing up the court” couple, like “Isaacstrakhan”. The list goes on...

                          Comment


                          • All I ask is that you at least have a bash at a vaguely credible explanation for Hutchinson’s failure to secure lodgings anywhere in the east end, despite having funds to pay for them; and why, if he was so intent on avoiding anywhere other than his “usual lodgings”, did he walk all those miles home in the certain knowledge that he would have missed closing time by one hour.

                            He said he walked the streets all night, ie; homeless. Is that too complex?
                            It makes no sense for him to have “walked about all night” if he had money to pay for lodgings at one of the hundreds of homes still open in the area. Is that too complex?

                            If Hutchinson had truly alerted a PC, and that PC had truly informed his superiors about it, what do you suggest went so terribly wrong that the police hierarchy only learned of Hutchinson’s existence when he came forward at 6.00pm on the 12th?

                            Witnesses in murder cases don't always come forward - live with it.
                            Move on to the next argument
                            Yes, but the evidence in this case suggests that the “witness” would not have come forward at all had he not been seen.

                            I’ll “move on to the next argument” when you do, Jon, and not a second before.

                            25 ft Ben, you're shameless attempt to exaggerate a detail to try win another argument is well known by all the regulars.
                            120 feet, actually.

                            I refer to the distance between the corner of Commercial/Dorset Street (Hutchinson) and the entrance to Miller’s Court (Kelly/Astrakhan).

                            It’s always fun, though, when you pretentiously invoke “all the regulars”.

                            A handkerchief is not going to be on display underneath a jacket and overcoat, Jon. Not even Hutchinson made such a claim.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Not compulsory Joshua, no.
                              There are a good number of British soldier group photo's from the 19th century and while the moustache was popular, it was not worn by every soldier.
                              Well you're right, sort of. In that technically it was forbidden to shave the upper lip, it would be impossible to force a moustache to grow.
                              Excuse the Wikipedia reference, I have read it somewhere more authoritative but this seems to cover it succinctly;

                              "After the Crimean war, regulations were introduced that prevented serving soldiers of all ranks from shaving above their top lip, in essence making moustaches compulsory for those who could grow them, although beards were later forbidden. This remained in place until 1916, when the regulation was abolished by an Army Order dated 6 October 1916. It was issued by Nevil Macready, Adjutant-General to the Forces, who loathed his own moustache and immediately shaved it off. However, there is considerable evidence in photographs and film footage that the earlier regulations were widely ignored and that many British soldiers of all ranks were clean-shaven even before 1916. This was often because the penalty for not growing a moustache was rarely enforced, as it wouldn't hold in military court for court-martialling."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                                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
                                Hi Ben,

                                In Hutch's case, the only possible way for any such 'incriminating link' to ever be made would be if he had been careless enough to allow his face to be seen clearly while he was waiting to enter the room of this woman he knew personally, for the purpose of murdering her and posing her differently from the others! He had only to keep his head down a bit in the darkness, with his hat down over his hair and facial features, and no bugger alive could have sworn to him again. If he'd killed several times in recent weeks, do you seriously imagine he'd have failed to take this simplest of measures to avoid the risk of even the nosiest witness being able to describe him, let alone point him out at a future time, if he really had no choice but to hang out near Dorset Street in the days and weeks after doing the deed?

                                How did he know, in 1888, that injecting himself into the investigation and putting himself so close to the murder scene of a woman he knew personally, would actually be safer than not doing so? And why would he think that, given there was virtually nothing in those days that could get him buckled, unless he was caught red-handed or while trying to flee the scene, with the evidence still on his person?

                                The next best thing the police could hope for, with very little chance of a confession, was to have the wanted man in front of them, tripping himself up during questioning or telling a pack of obvious lies. In 1888, it would be a fine line between brave and foolhardy for any criminal to put himself in that position voluntarily when he should have had absolutely no need if he'd been just that little bit smarter on the night.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 07-31-2018, 05:10 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X