Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    No pictures of victims to look at in the morning papers etc But with Hutch, it was different he had known Mary for three years, almost certainly known she was an unfortunate who jack was targetting. He would have known she was the victim not long after the murder, and he would have known he had a very good description of a potential killer. Even if he thought Mary was killed at 9 am he still saw someone acting dodgy [They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern] with her only a few hours earlier. Not only that but someone who was in the very room she was killed in for at least half an hour, and as far as Hutch was concerned since he never came out could have been there all night.
    What Hutch said about the man keeping his head down with his hat over his eyes [whether it was true or not] is proof positive that he'd have known to do exactly the same thing if he had been the killer, hanging around Miller's Court before striking, with the risk of someone spotting him and being curious about his intentions. If Lewis would have similarly needed to 'stoop down' right in front of Hutch in order to look him in the face, what on earth was he worried about? And how the hell did we arrive at the wholly spurious argument that he had to come forward to explain his presence there, because Lewis could have identified him as her lurker [really??] and then he'd have been dragged in as a suspect? It's not as though Hutch was wearing distinctive clothing or bling, is it?

    The argument is way beyond ludicrous and Hutch's own acknowledgement of how a man behaves when he doesn't want to show his face proves it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      I am afraid we are going to have to disagree Wick. A poor woman was butchered beyond belief the latest in a series of recent murders, [heaven knows when he will stop if not caught]. A woman who the witness had known for three years who was friendly enough with the witness to know his name and asked to lend money off - And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. My own personal opinion is that would be enough for any reluctant witness to come forward at the first opportunity if they thought they had relevant info.
      But you see, Darryl, this can work the other way. If Hutch's failure to come forward earlier was for some sinister reason, and especially if he invented the man with Kelly, he could so easily have lied about his relationship with the victim too, to downplay any idea that they knew one another beyond perhaps by sight, and over weeks rather than years. But he didn't do that. Or at least those who suspect Hutch of being a liar and conman at best and a killer at worst, seem to believe and hang on to the claims he made voluntarily about their relationship, because he makes a better suspect if this part of his statement is true!

      Isn't it equally possible that Abberline believed Hutch partly because he admitted such details about the victim, despite not having come forward immediately? Would anyone with something to hide, who had taken three days to show his face, have freely admitted that the victim of this hideous crime knew his surname, had known him for three years and had accepted money from him on occasion?

      It's the same with people who suspect Joe Barnett of Kelly's murder. He tells lies when they need him to tell lies, but the truth when they need him to tell the truth - whichever makes him look more suspicious. Using the words of a witness against him like this is no more than confirmation bias.

      If the killer ever put himself in a position where he was questioned by the police, he'd have lied to avoid suspicion, not told the truth and invited it.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        You see, one of the problems I have is that Hutchinson is being painted as both the Devil Incarnate --capable of Hanbury Street, Mitre Square, and Millers Court -- but also a man with utter ice in his veins, with the audacity of walking cooly into a police station, placing himself at the scene of the crime, and even leading plainclothes detectives on a futile search around East London for an imaginary suspect.

        Truly a terrifying man. Imagine the arrogance and the mockery inside such a person. Utterly vicious but also vain and calculating. A Jack the Ripper in bold lettering.

        And yet, after November, nothing. We are supposed to believe the same person that was this arrogant and audacious would then be content to emigrate to Australia, stay below the radar, and be happy polishing brass in a factory and raising three kids, or whatever he was supposed to be doing?

        To me, the Hutchinson theory lacks an overarching vision of the criminal. At least the Druitt, Bury, Cohen theories, offer some explanation as to why this "Heaven Knows When He Will Stop" character did stop after November 1888. Yet the portrait we get of Hutchinson is far beyond any of these in cunning and vanity and yet he simply dissolves back into the herd afterwards. It seems wholly out of character.
        We are back to the old 'bravado versus self preservation' conundrum here, rj. If Hutch injected himself into his own investigation and did all this out of sheer bravado, why did he stop there, as you rightly wonder? If he did commit more murders they were damp squibs by comparison.

        If he went to the cops [and the press??] out of self preservation, he was so lily-livered that he truly feared a hawk-eyed Sarah Lewis might be lurking round the next corner waiting to report him for loitering near the crime scene if he didn't own up to doing just that. Was he unable for some reason simply to leave the area and Lewis behind? Was he forced to give up or curtail his favourite blood sport as a result?

        I don't recall seeing a reasonable counter-argument to the above. The explanation is usually that it could have been a combination of both bravado and self preservation which drove him into the limelight, but I can't see why this would work any better in practice, or deal with the objections.

        If he thought he'd come a little too close for comfort to being buckled, why did he think that? And wasn't it entirely his own silly fault if he had?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          I don’t know where you’re getting “4 1/2 hours” from but if Hutchinson arrived on scene at 2.00am and the murder occurred at “half-past three o’clock or a quarter to four”, that would involve a wait of less than two hours.
          If Hutch arrived on the scene at 2 a.m. he wouldn't have been aware that Cox's blotchy client was in the room; yet this is the man whose exit you claim he is patiently waiting for as he leans against the wall for the benefit of Sarah Lewis:

          Originally posted by Ben View Post
          he was waiting for the Blotchy man to emerge, assuming the latter had fallen into a drunken slumber with Kelly some time after 1.00am, which would be perfectly consistent with Cox’s recollections.
          Uh, as I keep repeating, Cox stated that 'Blotchy' entered the room at 11.30 p.m., so if Hutch was aware of this, as you theorize, then he, too, must have been in Dorset Street or even Miller's Court at 11.30 p.m., so now we must tack on another 2 1/2 hours to the other two hours you have him already waiting, or rather surveilling this deeply complex 'venue.'


          Like I say, you have Hutch loitering at the crime scene for nearly 4 1/2 hours. 11.30 pm. - 4 a.m. He then spends another hour or so carving the poor woman up, lighting the fire, etc., so all told you have him there 6 hours or so.

          This, the same man who spent 10 minutes with Kate Eddowes.

          And to justify this obviously ridiculous scenario, you claim, without citation, that this is standard procedure of 'serial killers' who attack prostitutes inside their rooms. For instance, Bundy did it at the sororiety house at FSU. Not that those ladies were prostitutes, but you don't seem to mind mixing apples and oranges, Ben.


          Would it be ungentlemanly of me to call your bluff on this? Cite your source for this claim, Ben, because I've just reviewed several sources for Bundy's horrendous attack. Bundy was always exceedingly reticient about the events leading up to him being inside that house at FSU. The backdoor lock did not work, and one interviewer suggested to Bundy that he merely followed one of the women home from a nearby bar, saw her enter the back door, and simply followed her in. To which Bundy, as always, smirked and gave an evasive reply.

          I will, of course, gladly retract this observation if you can cite your source, Ben, because it is becoming increasingly obvious you are simply making statements that we are supposed to accept on faith.


          If one boils away all the nonsense, what you really seem to be claiming is that a man leaning against a wall (a la Sarah Lewis's man) is consistent with the behavior of a serial killer. In reality it is no more consistent with the behavior of a serial killer than eating an ice cream cone is consistent with the behavior of a serial killer.

          Sorry, mate, by I am well-aware when someone is trying to b.s. me. And thus I must bid you a fond farewell. I've already read all these arguments in Hinton's book long ago and have concluded the answer lies elsewhere. All the very best.

          Comment


          • Hi RJ,

            Mahalo E koʻu hoa. Nui loa ka manaʻo.

            Simon
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Caz I never said that Hutch was Jtr nor do I think it likely. These where desperate times and Hutch was a desperate man in the sense he had no money and no job. In the A to Z it says from a newspaper report that Hutch was paid five times his usual salary to walk around with the police to try and identify the man he saw. I don't know if this is true, but I am sure the police at the least would give him a hot meal or two and perhaps pay for his lodgings.
              Was he paid for his interview with the press as well? Likely.
              Suppose Hutch had an alibi for, if not the Kelly murder, say the double murder.
              Also, what do the police have on him? No knife, no bloodstains, no descriptions of him with other victims.
              What happened to Violena. After the Chapman murder, he tried to finger Pizer with false info. His punishment - Severe reprimand.
              IMHO George took a chance. Waited three days, and after the inquest to see what he could find out. Then went to the Police with a story which might earn him a few shillings and a bed for a couple of nights. How could the Police disprove his story? No one came forward to say they saw or heard Mary between the crucial times [for George's story], of between two and three in the morning. Nor where they likely to. And if his story was disproved, what was his punishment. In the case of Violena who could have sent Pizer to the gallows, severe reprimand.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Personally, I don't think Hutchinson was "guilty" of anything more than bull$hit, to a greater or lesser degree.
                The problem with this, Gareth, is that he put himself near the crime scene for a full three-quarters of an hour, between approximately 2.15 and 3 am, and didn't report hearing any cries of "Murder". He claimed to leave Miller's Court with no clue that Kelly had been, or would be murdered, and he could not possibly know what the best estimate of her time of death would turn out to be.

                If he wasn't the killer, what do you think he was really doing there for all that time, and what would his thoughts have been in the days following his realisation of what had happened in that room, at some yet to be established point between the last reliable sighting of her alive [either his own or someone else's] and when she was found dead? It's not a position most men would care to find themselves in, is it?

                Equally, if you don't think Hutch was there at all, could you explain why you think he put himself in that position, with even less idea of when, where or how she may have met her killer; when they may have entered her room and when he may have begun the attack; when the reported cries of "Murder" may really have been heard and where they may actually have come from; how long the killer was inside mutilating her; or the reliability of any of the other witness statements? Wasn't he taking a dirty great leap in the dark by claiming to have been there for nearly an hour during a specific period of time, if he didn't have a blessed clue what the police may already have learned about who was/wasn't there, what was/wasn't seen and what was/wasn't heard during that exact same period?

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  If he wasn't the killer, what do you think he was really doing there for all that time
                  Personally, I believe there's a chance that he wasn't even there, never mind for 45 minutes.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                    Caz I never said that Hutch was Jtr nor do I think it likely. These where desperate times and Hutch was a desperate man in the sense he had no money and no job. In the A to Z it says from a newspaper report that Hutch was paid five times his usual salary to walk around with the police to try and identify the man he saw. I don't know if this is true, but I am sure the police at the least would give him a hot meal or two and perhaps pay for his lodgings.
                    Was he paid for his interview with the press as well? Likely.
                    Suppose Hutch had an alibi for, if not the Kelly murder, say the double murder.
                    Also, what do the police have on him? No knife, no bloodstains, no descriptions of him with other victims.
                    What happened to Violena. After the Chapman murder, he tried to finger Pizer with false info. His punishment - Severe reprimand.
                    IMHO George took a chance. Waited three days, and after the inquest to see what he could find out. Then went to the Police with a story which might earn him a few shillings and a bed for a couple of nights. How could the Police disprove his story? No one came forward to say they saw or heard Mary between the crucial times [for George's story], of between two and three in the morning. Nor where they likely to. And if his story was disproved, what was his punishment. In the case of Violena who could have sent Pizer to the gallows, severe reprimand.
                    very sound reasoning DK
                    "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


                    • These 954 arguments assume that George Hutchinson and Mr. Astrakhan were people who actually existed.
                      Last edited by Simon Wood; 08-02-2018, 10:59 AM. Reason: Rithmetic
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        If Hutch arrived on the scene at 2 a.m. he wouldn't have been aware that Cox's blotchy client was in the room; yet this is the man whose exit you claim he is patiently waiting for as he leans against the wall for the benefit of Sarah Lewis:



                        Uh, as I keep repeating, Cox stated that 'Blotchy' entered the room at 11.30 p.m., so if Hutch was aware of this, as you theorize, then he, too, must have been in Dorset Street or even Miller's Court at 11.30 p.m., so now we must tack on another 2 1/2 hours to the other two hours you have him already waiting, or rather surveilling this deeply complex 'venue.'


                        Like I say, you have Hutch loitering at the crime scene for nearly 4 1/2 hours. 11.30 pm. - 4 a.m. He then spends another hour or so carving the poor woman up, lighting the fire, etc., so all told you have him there 6 hours or so.

                        This, the same man who spent 10 minutes with Kate Eddowes.

                        And to justify this obviously ridiculous scenario, you claim, without citation, that this is standard procedure of 'serial killers' who attack prostitutes inside their rooms. For instance, Bundy did it at the sororiety house at FSU. Not that those ladies were prostitutes, but you don't seem to mind mixing apples and oranges, Ben.


                        Would it be ungentlemanly of me to call your bluff on this? Cite your source for this claim, Ben, because I've just reviewed several sources for Bundy's horrendous attack. Bundy was always exceedingly reticient about the events leading up to him being inside that house at FSU. The backdoor lock did not work, and one interviewer suggested to Bundy that he merely followed one of the women home from a nearby bar, saw her enter the back door, and simply followed her in. To which Bundy, as always, smirked and gave an evasive reply.

                        I will, of course, gladly retract this observation if you can cite your source, Ben, because it is becoming increasingly obvious you are simply making statements that we are supposed to accept on faith.


                        If one boils away all the nonsense, what you really seem to be claiming is that a man leaning against a wall (a la Sarah Lewis's man) is consistent with the behavior of a serial killer. In reality it is no more consistent with the behavior of a serial killer than eating an ice cream cone is consistent with the behavior of a serial killer.

                        Sorry, mate, by I am well-aware when someone is trying to b.s. me. And thus I must bid you a fond farewell. I've already read all these arguments in Hinton's book long ago and have concluded the answer lies elsewhere. All the very best.
                        Hi Rj

                        By his own account-hutch went and stood right outside her place.
                        her window was broken-he could have heard her in there with blotchy/guest.
                        no need to stand around for 4 hours.
                        "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
                          These 954 arguments assume that George Hutchinson and Mr. Astrakhan were people who actually existed.
                          George Hutchinson certainly did.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Hi Sam,

                            Certain?

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Recall that Lewis also mentioned a 'young man' in the street. It seems to me there was likely to have been many more people out and about than we always get when Ripperologists create these barren, stick-figure pantomimes in order to weave their theories.
                              I think Lewis was referring to the same man who was with the woman, watched by the loiterer.
                              "Young man" is just a polite social term. Mrs Kennedy used the same phrase - "young man" in describing the man she saw outside the Britannia, yet her estimate of his age was "about 40 yrs old".
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                I know that newspapers are a secondary source of evidence but I feel that the statement in the Times - "One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else"
                                Is a direct answer to a question did he see anyone else in Dorset st, or go into, or in Millers Court. Not, did he see any other dodgy looking men - I saw a policeman. Why mention just a man going into a lodging house. Did this man come out of Millers Court? almost certainly not or Hutch would have said. Was he hanging around suspiciously? Ditto. Sarah Lewis going into the court at the very time Hutch was stood there was of the utmost importance " I saw a woman go into the court I was watching" Surely the journalist would have included this detail.
                                Hutch didn't say "no-one came down Dorset street", he said "not one came down, etc..." - check the original.
                                He was referring to not seeing a policeman come down Dorset street.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X