Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • He could equally well have picked her up on the street and was escorted back to her room.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      Do you think Abberline interrogated Mary Cox, investigated her past history because she saw Kelly with a man?
      Or Caroline Maxwell, who also saw Kelly with a man, and looked into her past history too?
      Of course he will compare the statement of one witness with that of others, that is all part of the investigation. I fully expect he did, which is in part why he believed his story.

      What "senses"?, it is easy to suggest he changed his mind when there are no further reports from Abberline.
      Do you think he also changed his mind about Mary Cox's story too?
      Hutch sighting of the suspect and victim was 15 minutes long,the longest of all the witnesses.Yes they would be more interested in Hutch.For credibility,check his past,correlate with other witnesses's testimony and if the witness was willing to face the jury and coroner under the threat of a fine - but this was not available because the police and or somebody higher cut the inquest short illegally ,and witness's expressions.
      Yes I believe Abberline and most of the press did not asked Hutch on Lewis and was focused only on Hutch's sighting and the "suspect" initially.It's clear enough for me that Abberliine and most of the rest,the mobs going after possible jack the ripper and individuals turning in "jack the ripper" were agitated and focused solely on "who was the killer".But then after they put two and two together they finally figured Hutch's sighting was from "another day" because of the omission of Lewis-thus discredited.Dew picked it up.
      As I said in a previous post if Abberline drilled Hutch on Lewis,Hutch would add that sighting in his newspaper statements after the interrogation like any/most "see it tell it" witness without an ulterior motive.But he was consistent on the omission of Lewis.
      Anyway it's simple enough and clear enough,as Dew put it politely,Hutch sighting was from another day.But I believe otherwise,post #1055.All those ripper documentaries with Hutch in it are wrong.

      --
      Last edited by Varqm; 08-07-2018, 09:10 AM.
      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        ...
        Perhaps any letters to Kelly were addressed NO9 C/O NO 27,but your answer appears to support a proposistion that few people actually knew no9 was occupied by Kelly.
        Does it matter? It does to those that are of the opinion the killer went to that room of his own accord,and there were no banners or other such material proclaiming,Mary Kelly lives here.
        Well, thankyou for explaining your question. I had wondered what your reasoning was.
        Was this in response to something I said, or are you just discussing this with me?
        I don't ever recall suggesting the killer approached her room with her inside. Others have proposed this 'burglar' theory, but I don't subscribe to that.

        A previous client could easily have known which room was Kelly's.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          Fair enough, Fisherman; my criticism was misplaced. I do apologize for that.

          You see, I perhaps became a little carried away because I am more concerned with what might be regarded as an "aspect" of the underlying belief system: the insistence that the correct "profile" of the Ripper would be a chap like Hutchinson/Cohen/Lechmere/Barnett, etc. In other words, the 'local nobody' so popular among most 'Ripperologists.' But yes, you're quite right, unlike the Hutchinson theorists, the Lechmerean Brethren do not dispute the very existence of men like Astrakhan in the East End in order to hoist their theories onto the public. They just don't see them as "likely suspects." Is that a better way of putting it? Best wishes.
          Thanks for that - having delved into the Ripper case for more than forty years, it is kind of of-putting to be told that you have a simplified view of the case and the town it played out in, so I am pleased to hear that you no longer pursue that line.

          As an aside, I do not insist as such that the killer must have been a local nobody - it is a role that is often enough coupled with many of the serialists we have on record, but if I have learnt anything at all over the years, then that is to respect how there can be exceptions to the rule.

          The reason I believe Lechmere was the killer is not that he was a local nobody. That is secondary, and I would have suspected anybody who gave an alternative name and disagreed with the police over what was said on the evening of the Nichols murder, especially if the version recorded by the police was in total sync with a wish to bypass them.

          As for Astrakhan being a likely suspect, I myself think he was in place on the night before the Kelly murder. But if he had been there on the actual murder night, he would of course be a viable enough suspect, going on that fact only.

          I am no more one-dimensional and cartoonish than that, I´m afraid. But enough now of the carman, and back to Hutchinson!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
            Hutch sighting of the suspect and victim was 15 minutes long,the longest of all the witnesses.Yes they would be more interested in Hutch.
            Agreed, fair enough.

            For credibility,check his past,correlate with other witnesses's testimony and if the witness was willing to face the jury and coroner under the threat of a fine - but this was not available because the police and or somebody higher cut the inquest short illegally ,and witness's expressions.
            Abberline would have had time to check his movements in Romford. A quick telegraph to a Romford police station to send a constable to any address, would not take that long.
            It's just, I don't think his connections with Romford were any concern to Abberline.
            Of course he will compare Hutchinson's story with Lewis's, but he doesn't need to question Hutch on Lewis, beyond asking him if he remembered any women in Dorset street that night.
            As for the early closing of the inquest, I know the press wrote that Mcdonald was wrong to do that, but I recall David Orsam reading up on the Act, and pointing out it was quite legal to do what he did.

            It's clear enough for me that Abberliine and most of the rest,the mobs going after possible jack the ripper and individuals turning in "jack the ripper" were agitated and focused solely on "who was the killer".But then after they put two and two together they finally figured Hutch's sighting was from "another day" because of the omission of Lewis-thus discredited.Dew picked it up.
            Well, like I posted already. If Hutch, or his story was truly discredited by the 15th, then why are the police still hunting Astrachan 4 days later?
            That demonstrates the solitary claim of being "discredited" was bogus, it never happened.
            No-one investigates a discredited story.
            The Echo appears to have a better handle on what happened.

            As I said in a previous post if Abberline drilled Hutch on Lewis,Hutch would add that sighting in his newspaper statements after the interrogation like any/most "see it tell it" witness without an ulterior motive.But he was consistent on the omission of Lewis.
            But, if he was not grilled on seeing Lewis, as I believe, then why would he think it was significant to mention to anyone else?
            Abberline only needs to know if Hutch could be Lewis's loiterer. He doesn't need Hutch to make the connection too.


            Anyway it's simple enough and clear enough,as Dew put it politely,Hutch sighting was from another day.But I believe otherwise,post #1055.All those ripper documentaries with Hutch in it are wrong.
            Not sure what you mean there.
            In post #1055 you say you do not agree with a 'wrong day' argument by Dew?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Abberline only needs to know if Hutch could be Lewis's loiterer. He doesn't need Hutch to make the connection too.
              Personally, I have little doubt that Abberline would at some stage have asked specifically about Lewis, in order for Hutch to mention and describe her. That would rule out all possibilities of a mistake, and it would be something that was a standard requirement for Abberline to take care of, as far as I am concerned. Anything else would be half a police job.

              Realizing that Hutch COULD be the loiterer Lewis mentioned was never going to be enough - establishing that he WAS would have been of the essence.

              Comment


              • Jon,
                Do not make yourself too important.What I write is up for anyone to read and to reply.If it is a technical question I want answered,you would be in the rearmost ranks I would seek out.
                So,everything else being equal,I am of the opinion that Kelly could have been killed by an aquaintance,as much as she could have been killed by a stranger.
                Also,as I have stated,Hutchinson could have been telling some truths,one of which claims him(Hutchinson) as being aquainted.
                So instead of giving alternatives,what I wish is someone to prove my opinions wrong.So far Jon, you have nswered opinion with opinion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ben View Post

                  Notice that the reasons given for Hutchinson’s “discounting” don’t have the slightest thing to do with Cox’s evidence or Bond’s proffered time of death. On nobody’s planet does a witness’s account suffer such a reduction in importance purely because another witness saw her three hours earlier with a completely different looking man. If there were two clients seen with Kelly at different times, and both accounts were considered genuine, one doesn’t “cancel” the other out.
                  Cox isn't just another witness Ben.

                  Blotchy is of no significance if he is not the murderer. The police are not looking for Blotchy just to confirm he had a liaison with Kelly.
                  Blotchy was presumed by "some of the authorities" to have been the murderer. This was also mentioned by the Echo;
                  "The man was, it was at first presumed, the murderer."

                  The Echo expressed this apparent devaluing of Hutchinson's story because his suspect was suddenly elevated to being "the suspected murderer" in the morning of the 13th, yet only sharing the position by the afternoon. Hence - devalued, in the eyes of the press.

                  The police were now looking for two murderer's, and that continued until the 19th, after which the press seem to have lost interest in the investigation.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    As an aside, I do not insist as such that the killer must have been a local nobody.
                    Hi Fisherman--thanks. I don't want to derail the current thrust of the conversation, but my impressions of the Lechmere theory came from watching "The Missing Evidence" video, which began with several statements claiming the murderer would be a faceless, nameless, local chap, blending in with the crowd; particularly the 'profile' created by Dr. Gareth Norris which states that prognosis quite overtly. The only reason it is relevant to this thread is that Ben and a couple of other posters are stating the same thing. But, yes, I suppose it is fair to say that one doesn't always have control over the editing or the content of a video, so perhaps your views were more complex than what the producer put up on the screen. With all good wishes, RP.

                    P.S. I show my age by calling it a 'video.'

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Do you think Abberline interrogated Mary Cox, investigated her past history because she saw Kelly with a man?
                      Or Caroline Maxwell, who also saw Kelly with a man, and looked into her past history too?
                      Of course he will compare the statement of one witness with that of others, that is all part of the investigation. I fully expect he did, which is in part why he believed his story.

                      What "senses"?, it is easy to suggest he changed his mind when there are no further reports from Abberline.
                      Do you think he also changed his mind about Mary Cox's story too?
                      Hi Jon. Considering Abberline later considered George Chapman as the suspect, he may have favored the description of the man of foreign-appearance during the investigation. True, his mind may have been open after hearing the details surrounding Chapman; but, if he had been steadfast that the killer was an Englishman, I doubt that he would have selected George.
                      there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                      Comment


                      • Abberline also said that the witnesses only saw Jack from a back view.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          Hi Fisherman--thanks. I don't want to derail the current thrust of the conversation, but my impressions of the Lechmere theory came from watching "The Missing Evidence" video, which began with several statements claiming the murderer would be a faceless, nameless, local chap, blending in with the crowd; particularly the 'profile' created by Dr. Gareth Norris which states that prognosis quite overtly. The only reason it is relevant to this thread is that Ben and a couple of other posters are stating the same thing. But, yes, I suppose it is fair to say that one doesn't always have control over the editing or the content of a video, so perhaps your views were more complex than what the producer put up on the screen. With all good wishes, RP.

                          P.S. I show my age by calling it a 'video.'
                          If I was to divulge MY age, I would call it a Lumierism. Fair enough, the docu does take that stance - and in all honesty, I do not think it must be in any way wrong. On the contrary, it has a lot going for it. But it remains unproven. So far.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Agreed, fair enough.



                            Abberline would have had time to check his movements in Romford. A quick telegraph to a Romford police station to send a constable to any address, would not take that long.
                            It's just, I don't think his connections with Romford were any concern to Abberline.
                            Of course he will compare Hutchinson's story with Lewis's, but he doesn't need to question Hutch on Lewis, beyond asking him if he remembered any women in Dorset street that night.
                            As for the early closing of the inquest, I know the press wrote that Mcdonald was wrong to do that, but I recall David Orsam reading up on the Act, and pointing out it was quite legal to do what he did.

                            ---Even though the police were complaining of heavy load yes I believe they would want to know more about this man Hutch.How do we know that Abberline may have missed correlating Lewis's statement to Hutch's on that interview before the sending of the opinion/letter that Hutch was truthful, and instead focused solely/mostly on the suspect.And/but later on put 2 and 2 together - he could not have missed it was the wrong day.

                            ----there was a thread for this, No PC on Dorset St. I believe,I don't recall Orsam posting it.This inquest was hurriedly concluded.

                            Well, like I posted already. If Hutch, or his story was truly discredited by the 15th, then why are the police still hunting Astrachan 4 days later?
                            That demonstrates the solitary claim of being "discredited" was bogus, it never happened.
                            No-one investigates a discredited story.
                            The Echo appears to have a better handle on what happened.

                            ----The Joseph Isaacs story? As posted before the reason they were after him was because he was acting strange pn the night/day Kelly was murdered.That it was related to Astrakhan was the reporter's opinion.The reporter did not know because there was no official line.

                            But, if he was not grilled on seeing Lewis, as I believe, then why would he think it was significant to mention to anyone else?
                            Abberline only needs to know if Hutch could be Lewis's loiterer. He doesn't need Hutch to make the connection too.


                            ----the difference between a see it tell it witness and somebody with an ulterior motive.

                            Not sure what you mean there.
                            In post #1055 you say you do not agree with a 'wrong day' argument by Dew?

                            ----The common sense/logical conclusion is it was the wrong day as Dew,who was an active policeman at that time, pointed out.There was no other basis for this except the omission of Lewis.There was/is no official police report on their conclusion on Hutch.Dew did not know either of any official report.But Dew had common sense.Post #1055 explains why I think/believe Hutch lied instead of mistaking the day.
                            All these point have been discussed before.I'm not inclined do another round.


                            ---
                            Last edited by Varqm; 08-07-2018, 10:50 PM.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                              Abberline also said that the witnesses only saw Jack from a back view.
                              ... and specifically mentioned his wearing a peaked cap. Neither of these attributes fits the Astrakhan Man sighting.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                He could equally well have picked her up on the street and was escorted back to her room.
                                Even that would represent a significant pattern deviation Sam, but there is no compelling evidence that suggests Mary ever left her room after 11:45ish Thursday night, which is interesting when we look at Mary Ann's statement relating to the times she walked past the room and how late she was out. From the time that she went by Kellys room after the room had initially gone dark and silent to the time she returned for the night, a period of 2 hours, she saw nothing worth mentioning and she found room 13 in the same condition it was in 2 hours previous. For all we know she might have been walking Dorset and had a view of comings and goings for those 2 hours.

                                If Mary roused and went out, she would have lit the half candle she had.

                                I think the evidence suggests that the killer came into the court and tried to enter only Marys room. How he did is unclear, but the disturbance at 3:45 that was heard by 2 witnesses living in the immediate area might shed light on that question. Someone cried out, a phrase that wasn't often literally meant, and no-one later claimed that cry. 1 woman couldn't claim it, even if she had made it.

                                I think the footsteps that Mary Ann heard around 6, leaving the courtyard, were likely the killers, and that Mary was killed sometime between 3:45am and 6am. By someone she let into the room.

                                That is contrary behavior to the 1st 2 Canonicals, and an argument could be made for victims 3 and 4 to show continuing pattern, who both may have been actively soliciting for all we know. The real point is that these 4 murders seem to be random acts committed outdoors. Not sure they all are, but that's the surface value here.
                                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-08-2018, 02:51 AM.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X