Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I’ve never understood this. She was a prostitute, he was a client, they were heading for the warmth of Mary’s room. Why did they stand talking in the street for three minutes? It makes little sense to me.
    Perhaps they were engaging in some spicy banter to get into the right mood?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Could the killer have been sure that he’d been seen near Mitre Square? At a distance, in the dark might he not have felt confident that he couldn’t have been identified? He would also have known that the three witnesses weren’t heading into Mitre Square. In Dorset Street Hutchinson was seen just a short distance across from the murder site.
      According to Lawende's evidence, " it is 15 or 16 feet from the Club to the passage where they were standing".

      Which is probably the width of Duke St, and no more (probably less) than the distance across Dorset St (25ft wide) to the Miller's Court entrance.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
        According to Lawende's evidence, " it is 15 or 16 feet from the Club to the passage where they were standing".
        The difference being that, in this case, it's less likely that Lawende and co would have known who the suspect was, even by sight. Hutchinson, if it was him in Dorset Street, was fouling his own doorstep.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          The difference being that, in this case, it's less likely that Lawende and co would have known who the suspect was, even by sight. Hutchinson, if it was him in Dorset Street, was fouling his own doorstep.
          Fair point, but only because we know the identity of the lurker in Dorset Street (or the man who claimed to be the lurker, anyway). Without knowing the identity of the Church Passage man we can't say he wasn't a local or a frequent visitor to that spot.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ben View Post
            They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief”.

            How much clearer could Hutchinson be? While the handkerchief conversation was taking place, he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street. You can either believe him or disbelieve him on this point, but what you absolutely don’t get to do is pretend he said something entirely different and then use your fiddled-with version as a basis for believing him.
            So, Hutchinson reported hearing a few loudly-spoken words of a 3-minute conversation from a "spreeish" speaker on a quiet night in a narrow street with brick buildings either side. This doesn't sound too unbelievable to me, even from 40 yards away.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              I’ve never understood this. She was a prostitute, he was a client, they were heading for the warmth of Mary’s room. Why did they stand talking in the street for three minutes? It makes little sense to me.
              Good point Herlock,
              However, if we accept your point as logical, then surely it is just as logical that a very drunk Mary entering the court with Blotchy would be extremely unlikely to venture out again.

              Mary was very drunk.

              She and Blotchy had a carry out and clearly intended to drink some more.

              It was rainy that night.

              Why on earth do people think that she was in any fit state to venture out again that night?

              Taking into account Hutchinson's ridiculously elaborate descriction of Astrakhan Man, and the way that he quickly vanishes from the case, which implies that the Police were no longer giving his evidence much credence, can anyone be criticised for not believing Hutchinson.

              Surely the simple and probably correct hypothesis is that Hutchinson did not see Kelly on the date that he said he did, and that Mary entered the room with her blotchy faced killer.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                According to Lawende's evidence, " it is 15 or 16 feet from the Club to the passage where they were standing".

                Which is probably the width of Duke St, and no more (probably less) than the distance across Dorset St (25ft wide) to the Miller's Court entrance.
                Thanks for that Joshua

                I wonder if it was possible that because the Mitre Square suspect was facing CE he might have felt that she was partially shielding him from view? I fully accept that I could be clutching at straws here. I’ll add though, maybe he saw the 3 men walk past but he felt that none of them had looked in his direction? Maybe he missed Lawende’s quick glance and so felt that he couldn’t be identified?
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  Without knowing the identity of the Church Passage man we can't say he wasn't a local or a frequent visitor to that spot.
                  Indeed, but I'd put good money on his being a local, given his subsequent trajectory away from Mitre Square (assuming he was Jack). Whether he was a local or not, I suspect that he wasn't the type to have moved in the same circles as respectable Jewish businessmen, as the latter seemed to indicate - i.e. "I don't like being out when these sort of people are about", or words to that effect.

                  Hutch, Kelly and Lewis, by contrast, were of the same class and ethnicity, and lived within a short walk of one another in the heart of Spitalfields.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
                    Good point Herlock,
                    However, if we accept your point as logical, then surely it is just as logical that a very drunk Mary entering the court with Blotchy would be extremely unlikely to venture out again.

                    Mary was very drunk.

                    She and Blotchy had a carry out and clearly intended to drink some more.

                    It was rainy that night.

                    Why on earth do people think that she was in any fit state to venture out again that night?

                    Taking into account Hutchinson's ridiculously elaborate descriction of Astrakhan Man, and the way that he quickly vanishes from the case, which implies that the Police were no longer giving his evidence much credence, can anyone be criticised for not believing Hutchinson.

                    Surely the simple and probably correct hypothesis is that Hutchinson did not see Kelly on the date that he said he did, and that Mary entered the room with her blotchy faced killer.
                    Cheers Barn,

                    How desperate would she have had to have been to have gone back out as you say? Already drunk and about to get a bit drunker, at that time and in that weather. Does the fact that Mary was heavily in arrears point to either the fact that she was a bit ‘relaxed’ when it came to paying debts or that she had some kind of ‘agreement’ with McCarthy which allowed her to run up that debt at a time when people were refused beds for a couple of pennies? I’m just saying that might this point away from her being desperate enough to venture out again?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      If he gave her name & address it might help, how on earth is he going to do that? This was just a woman in the shadows on the other side of the street.
                      Hutch wasn't on trial, he was not defending himself. No-one told him to prove he was there.
                      Like I said, he mentioned men in the street because only men were under consideration as the killer. He saw no suspicious men in Dorset street.

                      " What did Abberline think of Hutchinson? Fortunately we know this from the covering report of the same date -

                      " An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few
                      hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

                      Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 a.m. to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased." "




                      While all his points above were good,because some people sometimes mix days up, it did not eliminate the possibility the witness missed the woman and therefore his "sighting" was from a different day and therefore the witness's testimony was useless as to the early morning of Kelly's death.

                      Is that agreed?

                      How else would Abberline confirm that Hutch's sighting was the early morning Kelly died except through the sighting of the woman? Tell me.You would not just ask the person "Was your sighting Friday" and if he said yes then you accept?

                      As simple as confirming whether Hutch saw the woman that day,who was more "dumb" or made a mistake Abberline or Dew - they had opposing views?
                      We could debate that all day long but I'm going with the records above,anything else is conjecture.Above Abberline was focused on Hutchinson's relationship with Kelly,the reason he was standing across/outside the court,and if he could identify the man seen with Kelly again.,and that -
                      "arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight" - the interrogation ended early 9-10 PM before midnight (What time did it start?) and Hutch will identify the victim in the mortuary next morning.
                      It did not say anything about confirming the day through his sighting of the woman.

                      If you were in Hutch's shoes standing opposite a friend's room in a court,,surprised that a well dressed man is with her and in 45 minutes only one person passed by and went inside the court,you won't include that in your statement to the police?



                      -----
                      Last edited by Varqm; 08-23-2018, 09:31 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 Sam Flynn View Post
                        Indeed, but I'd put good money on his being a local, given his subsequent trajectory away from Mitre Square (assuming he was Jack). Whether he was a local or not, I suspect that he wasn't the type to have moved in the same circles as respectable Jewish businessmen, as the latter seemed to indicate - i.e. "I don't like being out when these sort of people are about", or words to that effect.

                        Hutch, Kelly and Lewis, by contrast, were of the same class and ethnicity, and lived within a short walk of one another in the heart of Spitalfields.
                        I'm not sure Hutch would have expected to be recognised by Lewis any more than by Lawende etc (if he was CP Man). She usially lived in Great Pearl St, remember, which is about the same distance from the Victoria Home as Mitre Square.

                        Comment


                        • The Ripper's 'trajectory' deeper into the East End after Mitre Square is a solid mark against the Hutchinson theory since Hutch stayed in lodgings near Dorset Street. Alas, Ben will merely counter-argue that Hutch aka "Jack the Jewbaiter" needed to travel deeper into the East End in order to implicate the ragged, bearded, skull-capped Leather Apron types living there (despite describing an entirely different type six weeks later). Afterwards Hutch doubles-back, ducks into his lodging-house, tips his peaked cap at the deputy (who never thought to mention the late arrrival of a lodger shortly after a woman had been murdered). He then heads downstairs to the kitchen basement, elbows a couple of "unfortunates" out of his way, and burns his incriminating blood-stained cuffs over the cooking fire. All very plausible, imho.
                          Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-23-2018, 10:31 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Let’s put to bed once and for all the erroneous argument made by a couple of posters on this thread that Abberline’s 1903 interview is somehow evidence that Hutchinson was discredited by the police in 1888.

                            Making this claim over and over in a series of short smug posts does not make it true.

                            Here is the relevant passage from the rather brief interview Abberline gave about Klosowski/Chapman to the PMG, 24 March 1903, quoted in its entirety:


                            “the height of the man [Klosowski aka Chapman] and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man, but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only I have noted, and this is that the people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it easy to misjudge age from a back view.”

                            That’s it, folks.

                            Yes, believe it or not, this brief general observation is what supposedly proves that Hutchinson was discredited by the police and dropped like a red-hot penny—even by Abberline himself.

                            This is also what one poster calls Abberline’s “extensive” interview about witnesses.

                            No, Abberline does not mention Hutchinson by name. He also doesn’t mention Schwartz, Elizabeth Long, Joseph Lawende or anyone else by name. Does that mean they were similarly discredited?

                            One poster likes to imply that by mentioning a “peaked cap” Abberline is plumping for Lawende, which (illogically) means that he must be dismissing Hutchinson.

                            This, I’m afraid, is not only a bad argument but also a complete misunderstanding of the background of the interview. The PMG interviewer states explicitly that Abberline was contacted in response to a story that had appeared the previous day (March 23rd) in the Daily Chronicle. That article stated:

                            “Moreover he, [Chapman] always carried a black bag and wore a ‘P. and O.’ cap. The man who was ‘wanted’ in connection with the Whitechapel murders always wore a ‘P. and O.’ cap and carried a black bag according to the tale of some of the women who escaped him.”

                            So, in mentioning the alleged peak cap of the Ripper, Abberline is merely alluding to the ‘P. and O.’ cap mentioned in the previous day’s edition of the Daily Chronicle, as well as depictions of Chapman published at the time of his 1903 trial for poisoning, that portrayed him wearing the peaked naval cap of the employees at the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

                            That’s all it refers to. It is not meant as a ‘dismissal’ of Hutchinson, who is not mentioned one way or the other. Nor is it even an endorsement of Lawende, as it refers to various WOMEN who supposedly saw the Ripper.

                            Note also that Abberline’s comment that the Ripper’s age was supposedly misjudged because witnesses only saw his back. This is a memory of Elizabeth Long, who described the Ripper as “over forty,” even though she had only seen his back as she passed through Hanbury Street. The Hutchinson theorists like to pretend that this must mean that Hutchinson was discredited, because he saw his suspect straight in the face. But if that were the case, they would have to similarly conclude that the police also dismissed Lawende, because Lawende also saw the Ripper straight in the face. But we know this is not true; Lawende was still being used as a witness well after 1888, ie., in his attempt to identify the suspect William Grainger. He is also one of the main male witnesses to describe the peaked cap alluded to earlier.

                            So, in other words, it’s another bad argument.

                            If anything, Abberline’s brief statement is an endorsement of Hutchinson as a witness. “All agree, too, that he was a foreign looking man” Abberline states. This certainly applies to Hutchinson, who was one of the main witnesses to describe the Ripper as a foreigner.

                            No; only a crazed “Ripperologist” would try to argue that these general remarks quoted by a newspaper man 15 years after the Whitechapel murders in direct response to the Daily Chronicle piece are more valuable than a direct statement by Abberline in an official report filed 12 November, 1888, where he directly states that Hutchinson is to be believed. It is a ridiculous line of reasoning, unworthy of someone using any recognized historical approach.

                            In other words, the PMG piece in no way is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited.

                            As late as 1930, Hargrave Lee Adam, describes Hutchinson as a valuable witness. Adam was not a member of the Metropolitan police, but he did know Macnaghten and Anderson, and, if he can be believed, seems to have discussed the Klosowski theory with Abberline. His acceptance of Hutchinson would be strange had any of these men dismissed Hutch as a proven liar. Indeed, one could even argue it is evidence that Abberline still endorsed Hutchinson years later, as Adam directly links Hutchinson’s suspect with Klosowski.

                            Contemporary image of Klosowski showing the peaked-cap
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              The Ripper's 'trajectory' deeper into the East End after Mitre Square is a solid mark against the Hutchinson theory since Hutch stayed in lodgings near Dorset Street. Alas, Ben will merely counter-argue that Hutch aka "Jack the Jewbaiter" needed to travel deeper into the East End in order to implicate the ragged, bearded, skull-capped Leather Apron types living there (despite describing an entirely different type six weeks later). Afterwards Hutch doubles-back, ducks into his lodging-house, tips his peaked cap at the deputy (who never thought to mention the late arrrival of a lodger shortly after a woman had been murdered). He then heads downstairs to the kitchen basement, elbows a couple of "unfortunates" out of his way, and burns his incriminating blood-stained cuffs over the cooking fire. All very plausible, imho.
                              Is the 'The Ripper's trajectory' an ascertained fact?

                              Comment


                              • I believe Mr. Flynn was referring to the piece of Kate Eddowe's apron found in Goulston Street, which is east of Mitre Square; so yes, it is generally accepted by a number of leading historians that the Ripper fled deeper into the East End after the Eddowes murder.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X