Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Maywood is a fascinating character is his own right. Seemingly a brothel-keeper as well as a drover...
    Sounds like a chip off the ol' McCarthy.

    I doubt Mary Kelly was a charity case. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to keep the 'renter' in 'arrears' as well as in alcohol.

    McCarthy had his fingers in several pies and I'd say the odds are about 50/50 that Astrachan was a friend of his, come to check on a horse for the stable.

    Not my solution to the mystery, mind you, but worth considering.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      Sounds like a chip off the ol' McCarthy.

      I doubt Mary Kelly was a charity case. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to keep the 'renter' in 'arrears' as well as in alcohol.

      McCarthy had his fingers in several pies and I'd say the odds are about 50/50 that Astrachan was a friend of his, come to check on a horse for the stable.

      Not my solution to the mystery, mind you, but worth considering.
      Maywood was far dodgier than McCarthy by my reckoning.

      Comment


      • The George Hutchinson, whom we think was The George Hutchison (toppy) had always kept to a belief that the murders were something to do with Royalty. Perhaps Astrakhan man was his description of a member of the Royal Family, as there is no way he was going to name any one and the member of the Royal Family who was implicated was in Scotland at the time.

        What's left is who was the Man standing on the opposite side of Millar's Court??

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
          The George Hutchinson, whom we think was The George Hutchison (toppy) had always kept to a belief that the murders were something to do with Royalty. Perhaps Astrakhan man was his description of a member of the Royal Family, as there is no way he was going to name any one and the member of the Royal Family who was implicated was in Scotland at the time.

          What's left is who was the Man standing on the opposite side of Millar's Court??

          The killer trying to see if the coast was clear with a focus on Kelly.Lewis came at 2:30 AM, saw him, wait for things to settle down.Cox came at 3:00 AM
          ,again wait or both missed each other entirely. Around 4:00 AM (average of the doctors's estimated time of death or before 6:00 AM.- the furthest if I remember right, and 'Oh murder cry") he striked.He was able to wait since there was no PC-on-the-beat all through the late evening and early morning (he did not have anything to say during those crucial hours before the inquest) and the street was practically deserted.
          The damn geezer wanted a parade.

          Or a potential/returning client checking if some "unfortunate" was available.Cox was out since 1:00 AM. Kelly was very drunk (Cox) and asleep
          with no indication otherwise.The rest of the Miller's court residents were trying to sleep or asleep and were expecting nobody.

          - I do not believe it was an innocent bystander since there was no one/movement in the court (Lewis) to be looking at it intently.
          Waiting as described by Lewis means/meant prior contact/knowledge.

          ----
          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


          • Hello BB
            Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
            The George Hutchinson, whom we think was The George Hutchison (toppy) had always kept to a belief that the murders were something to do with Royalty.
            That's what was claimed in Melvyn Fairclough's book, which was written after Stephen Knight's best-seller had put the Royal Conspiracy well and truly on the map. Fairclough's book is so untrustworthy that I even doubt the page numbering
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Hi.
              Topping simply said it was more likely a member of the upper classes. and his man resembled Lord Randolph Churchill in appearance,
              Question.
              Was Toppings tale invented purely for the books publication?
              Answer No.
              Appeared on Radio mid 1970's some 18 years prior.
              Fact
              Somewhere out there, a TV Magazine exists, [ Radio Times ] featuring ''The man that saw jack'' .
              I tries to trace it years back at Brighton University library ,[ with two members of my family] but with the time allotted me , it failed to materialise , because we only searched the front pages not the rear.?
              Anyone with access , and patience, can surely find this article, the recording was aired one weekday around 8 pm.
              It does , or at least did exist. it was my means to be able to listen to it , on the relevant date.
              Regards Richard.
              Last edited by richardnunweek; 08-14-2018, 12:59 AM.

              Comment


              • I sincerely doubt the Randolph Churchill bit, and suspect that he only got dragged into the matter because it suited Fairclough's agenda. I just can't see George making that comparison to his son Reg (Fairclough's source), as Churchill was a figure of the past; Winston, perhaps, Randolph no. It would be like me telling my son that someone resembled Harold Macmillan - utterly meaningless to a child of his generation.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                  [Aside: I'm aware that Lewis and Prater (who didnt claim any dialogue with Mary Jane) were called at the inquest, but I blv that had to do with "oh murder" more than anything else.]
                  I think the proximity to the murder site, and probability of actually having seen the exterior of Marys room that night were also relevant Robert. The way they described the "oh-murder" suggests a location of the call inside the courtyard, and we don't have any witnesses who claimed to be in there at that time, so for me anyway, they and Cox are THE most relevant statements here.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    But to me a glaring anomalie in his behaviour re him being reluctant to come forward because he dosnt want to get involved, is that once he does come forward-boy does he want to get involved! His story dosnt sound like someone with any reluctance at all-can be Ided, thought I saw him again, told a cop about it etc. etc. And then further involves himself by talking to the press and going on a walkabout with the cops! Not really the behaviour of a reluctant witness is it?
                    Hi Abby,

                    Catching up - slowly - with this thread. You are dead right: boy does he want to get involved when he finally shows up! But what can we take from this?

                    Would he have thrown caution to the wind in this way, if he was the ripper, intent on killing for as long as possible, undetected and unidentifiable?

                    Less is more, and if he was guilty I'd have thought he would have avoided saying any more than he absolutely had to, but just enough to give Abberline and co no reason to question his statement, his behaviour or his status as an innocent witness, one who'd be naturally wary in the circumstances in which he claimed to find himself, battling with his conscience but finally coming forward when his conscience won the day.

                    The fact that he talked to the press has always bothered me. It should be telling us something, but it wasn't the smartest thing to do if he had something enormous to hide and had not yet roused any police suspicions.

                    But what if he had told his story to a policeman on the Sunday, thinking he was doing his bit for Mary Kelly, but got the feeling he was not being taken seriously, or later believed the constable had not even passed on the details? Could this not have been the reason he went to the police station the following day, miffed that nothing appeared to have been done yet with his information? I mean, he could have cut out the middle man and gone straight to the cop shop over the weekend, but maybe he had assumed that telling a copper on the street and being reassured would suffice?

                    In these circumstances I could see Hutch talking to the press to make sure his information was not going to be ignored a second time.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 08-14-2018, 10:44 AM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                      Hi.
                      Topping simply said it was more likely a member of the upper classes. and his man resembled Lord Randolph Churchill in appearance,
                      Question.
                      Was Toppings tale invented purely for the books publication?
                      Answer No.
                      Appeared on Radio mid 1970's some 18 years prior.
                      Fact
                      Somewhere out there, a TV Magazine exists, [ Radio Times ] featuring ''The man that saw jack'' .
                      I tries to trace it years back at Brighton University library ,[ with two members of my family] but with the time allotted me , it failed to materialise , because we only searched the front pages not the rear.?
                      Anyone with access , and patience, can surely find this article, the recording was aired one weekday around 8 pm.
                      It does , or at least did exist. it was my means to be able to listen to it , on the relevant date.
                      Regards Richard.
                      Was this the program that you have in mind, Richard?
                      Broadcast on Radio 4, 20:00 on 1st June 1972

                      https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/37721b6d...392fa8b9fdc30f

                      "The Other Victorians

                      A ten-part series examining the hidden and darker aspects of Victorian life.
                      8: Who was Jack the Ripper? bv MICHELL RAPER
                      Compiled and introduced by MICHELL RAPER with the voices of BETTY BASKCOMB
                      DOUGLAS BLACKWELL. GERALD CROSS WILLIAM EEDLE. MARTIN FRIEND
                      OLWEN GRIFFITHS , LESLIE HERITAGE JOHN RUDDOCK , LEWIS STRINGER and MANNING WILSON
                      The series of gruesome murders committed by an unidentified psychopath in 1888 is perhaps the most notorious crime in British legal history. Among its most sensational features was the persistent rumour that the murderer was a highly placed aristocrat shielded by the police: and recently, and most sensationally of all. that he was the Duke of Clarence. eldest son of the Prince of Wales, later Edward VII , and therefore eventual heir to the English throne. When this unhappy Prince died in 1892 there was a well-orchestrated outpouring of grief: Hope of a people's heart - your promised king - and mine, .wrote Alfred Austin. But could he really have been Jack the Ripper? Producer HALLAM TENNYSON

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Hi Abby,

                        Catching up - slowly - with this thread. You are dead right: boy does he want to get involved when he finally shows up! But what can we take from this?

                        Would he have thrown caution to the wind in this way, if he was the ripper, intent on killing for as long as possible, undetected and unidentifiable?

                        Less is more, and if he was guilty I'd have thought he would have avoided saying any more than he absolutely had to, but just enough to give Abberline and co no reason to question his statement, his behaviour or his status as an innocent witness, one who'd be naturally wary in the circumstances in which he claimed to find himself, battling with his conscience but finally coming forward when his conscience won the day.

                        The fact that he talked to the press has always bothered me. It should be telling us something, but it wasn't the smartest thing to do if he had something enormous to hide and had not yet roused any police suspicions.

                        But what if he had told his story to a policeman on the Sunday, thinking he was doing his bit for Mary Kelly, but got the feeling he was not being taken seriously, or later believed the constable had not even passed on the details? Could this not have been the reason he went to the police station the following day, miffed that nothing appeared to have been done yet with his information? I mean, he could have cut out the middle man and gone straight to the cop shop over the weekend, but maybe he had assumed that telling a copper on the street and being reassured would suffice?

                        In these circumstances I could see Hutch talking to the press to make sure his information was not going to be ignored a second time.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Hi Caz
                        I would expect that if he got brushed off by the cop on the street he would have gone straight to the station. and with such important info why would he even go to a cop on the street in the first place-would he really expect the cop to do something? A beat cop whos first attention is keeping peace on the streets-one who probably dealing with ripper nuttiness all the time?

                        anyway-hutchs behavior and story stinks to high heaven of a lying attention seeker. gun to head ive always said more than likely hes a liar and an attention seeker other than the ripper. But being a truthful and accurate witness is last on my list.
                        "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


                        • This is a real wild card! Hutchison going to town to make sure what he claimed to have saw is taken seriously by the Police, yet if he was the killer why would he be jumping up and down in the face of the law like a court jester- This is what I saw (yes I'm Jack The Ripper) I know Mary Jane Kelly (I hacked her to pieces). Just perhaps Hutch saw what he saw and that was it. If there was any statement from anyone else to suggest MJK came out of her home after 0.200am, [I]Then[/I I might be looking closely at Hutch, but until something surfaces, I think he's only a witness probably getting 15 minutes of fame.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            I think the proximity to the murder site, and probability of actually having seen the exterior of Marys room that night were also relevant Robert. The way they described the "oh-murder" suggests a location of the call inside the courtyard, and we don't have any witnesses who claimed to be in there at that time, so for me anyway, they and Cox are THE most relevant statements here.
                            Doesn't it concern you that Cox's story could not be verified by any publicans in nearby ale houses. No-one saw a blotchy faced man, with or without a woman like Kelly, buy ale around midnight?
                            Or is that something we just do not talk about?
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • If "Blotchy" had arranged to meet Mary Kelly in a pub,he might have had little to drink. Just enough to blend in.
                              Alcohol flush reaction would not have been immediately apparent.
                              The small pail of beer might have been for Mary.
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                But what if he had told his story to a policeman on the Sunday, thinking he was doing his bit for Mary Kelly, but got the feeling he was not being taken seriously, or later believed the constable had not even passed on the details? Could this not have been the reason he went to the police station the following day, miffed that nothing appeared to have been done yet with his information?
                                Hi Caz.

                                This will always be a bone of contention if we ignore the most prevalent theory over that weekend.
                                The Sunday morning constable could easily have replied to Hutch by saying, " we are told the victim was still alive after 9:00am Friday morning Mr Hutchinson".
                                And, that was true.

                                That first weekend the investigation was still in its early stages with no official conclusions available even for the regular constables. The police had no theory, they were only concerned with collecting evidence.
                                Therefore, it is very likely the beat constables obtained their knowledge from the press, like everybody else.

                                While it was also true that the Sunday morning press published that the medical team believed Kelly was murdered around 3:00 am. The Sunday morning PC may not have even read the morning papers, not until he gets off his shift.
                                Plus, the accuracy of medical opinion had suffered badly in the case of Chapman's time of death, so the medical opinion published on Sunday may not have been the game changer some modern theorists would like it to be.

                                If we ignore the press coverage on that weekend (that Kelly was still alive at 9:00 am Friday morning), we have no obvious reason for G.H. choosing to keep his story to himself for a couple of days.

                                Many of the questions raised have a reasonable solution if we just put aside our theories and try to understand this murder from the point of view of the locals at the time.
                                Last edited by Wickerman; 08-14-2018, 03:30 PM.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X