Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
    If the illustrations on the newspaper cover depict the people closely in likeness, does this mean the man looking on at Mary Kelly meeting the described suspect is the likeness of George Hutchinson?
    I agree with Sam's reply, though it must be noted that the date of the IPN sketch was 24 Nov. So an IPN reporter had about 10-12 days to meet Hutchinson and offer a true likeness for a sketch.
    That said, the only identifiable detail offered by Sarah Lewis was the wideawake hat, so an IPN reporter has no need to locate Hutchinson, just draw a male wearing a wideawake hat and readers will know who it is supposed to represent.

    I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in either of those three characters being true to life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
    If the illustrations on the newspaper cover depict the people closely in likeness, does this mean the man looking on at Mary Kelly meeting the described suspect is the likeness of George Hutchinson?
    I doubt it. Whilst the illustrations of the better known characters (senior police figures, doctors) might have been, the drawings of Kelly, Mr Astrakhan and "Hutchinson" were quite probably made up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    We spoke about PC L 63 last year. Monty identified him, the name escapes me at the moment, but I think he was on duty in Commercial Street, not Dorset Street.
    He was identified by David Orsam as Henry Rouse in this thread

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Something doesn't add up.

    Surprise!

    Top cartoon. There is Hutchinson's mother of Jews description. You couldn't get much better than the details in that drawing. A fully fledged out composite of JtR with horseshoe necktie pin and all. Now look to left. There is Hutchinson looking surprised at this ghastly fellow picking up MJK. Now look below that drawing and there is an officer. His name is L.63. His real name still a mystery. Look at the L.63 is saying 'I was on duty all night and never heard a sound'.

    So apparently Lambeth 63 wasn't present when Hutchinson's man picked up MJK and didn't see anything (never heard a sound).

    L.63 is Hutchinson's corroboration... or at least should be. How is it that Hutchinson who claims to have been there for 45 minutes didn't see this PC on his rounds?

    The PC should have seen him twice.
    If the illustrations on the newspaper cover depict the people closely in likeness, does this mean the man looking on at Mary Kelly meeting the described suspect is the likeness of George Hutchinson?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Regarding the examination of George "Toppy" Hutchinson's handwriting, and the possibility of the wrong exemplar having been used, Russell Edwards recounts an incident involving the Swanson Marginalia in his book Naming Jack the Ripper.

    Back in 1988, a photocopy of the Marginalia was sent to the Home Office, and this was compared to a known sample of Donald Swanson's handwriting by one of the forensic examiners, Dr. Totty. He came to the dramatic conclusion that the two writings were NOT written by the same person.

    According to Edwards, this set off alarm bells, but it was eventually concluded that Totty had not been given a genuine, legitimate sample of Swanson's handwriting. An error had been made. Although the signature on the document was indeed Swanson's, and it did originate from his office, the main body of the report had been written by an amanuensis or secretary, so the comparison had been flawed from the beginning. Other exemplars were then re-examined and the Home Office felt that the Marginalia matched Swanson's handwriting. So reports Edwards. Similar deal?

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    It was George Sims who called them sisters. I think they were just friends, but no matter. Kennedy will turn up, she is being looked for.

    Maxwell was the last sighting, not Kennedy.

    Why do you think Maxwell was called, it wasn't for pantomime.
    It's been pointed out for months now, the most prevalent theory over that first weekend on this murder was that Kelly was killed after 9:00 on Friday morning.
    That, is why Maxwell was called - the last person to see Kelly alive.
    Apologies ..... of course Maxwell was the last sighting, inquest wise anyway .
    That honour should really go to the unknown woman in the times .
    What I should have said was that the Kennedy sighting should have rendered Sarah Lewis' sighting as irrelevant .
    It is unfortunate that she has no credibility due to not being able to come up with the same story twice .

    You pointing out your own thoughts does not make them factual .
    ....They may appear to be to you .
    I believe Maxwell but there are other options than an after 9 murder , which I have pointed out .....
    We make our choices

    As for Kennedy turning up because she is being looked for .... that may or may not be but Kelly has been looked for for many years

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    ....

    The whole Hutchinson story is a nonsense
    As is the Lewis story which altered dramatically between statement and inquest and the constant cloak changes between Kennedy and Lewis .
    Yes , I know you think both existed and were sisters
    Evidence required ,as if so , Kennedy's was the last sighting and she should have been at the inquest
    It was George Sims who called them sisters. I think they were just friends, but no matter. Kennedy will turn up, she is being looked for.

    Maxwell was the last sighting, not Kennedy.

    Why do you think Maxwell was called, it wasn't for pantomime.
    It's been pointed out for months now, the most prevalent theory over that first weekend on this murder was that Kelly was killed after 9:00 on Friday morning.
    That, is why Maxwell was called - the last person to see Kelly alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Something doesn't add up.

    Surprise!

    Top cartoon. There is Hutchinson's mother of Jews description. You couldn't get much better than the details in that drawing. A fully fledged out composite of JtR with horseshoe necktie pin and all. Now look to left. There is Hutchinson looking surprised at this ghastly fellow picking up MJK. Now look below that drawing and there is an officer. His name is L.63. His real name still a mystery. Look at the L.63 is saying 'I was on duty all night and never heard a sound'.

    So apparently Lambeth 63 wasn't present when Hutchinson's man picked up MJK and didn't see anything (never heard a sound).

    L.63 is Hutchinson's corroboration... or at least should be. How is it that Hutchinson who claims to have been there for 45 minutes didn't see this PC on his rounds?

    The PC should have seen him twice.
    We spoke about PC L 63 last year. Monty identified him, the name escapes me at the moment, but I think he was on duty in Commercial Street, not Dorset Street.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    wicky



    he may have been at the inquest, outside the doors, talking to people on the streets, etc. or -He was staying at the victoria house a stones throw from the Kelly murder scene, he could have picked it up there.


    even if he hadnt even heard of Lewis at the inquest, he may have simply wanted to wait until the inquest was over before coming forward, for obvious reasons if he wasnt telling the truth.
    Maybe this, maybe that...if's, but's & maybe's.
    There's no maybe about what Hutchinson said, no maybe about what Lewis said.


    .......again for the millionth time-NO. physically impossible for lewis to have seen the same couple hutch did. Aman and Mary were already inside by the time Lewis arrived. talk about "ridiculous"! give it up man.
    Rubbish.
    Lewis tells us where she was at 2:30, Hutch doesn't tell us where Aman & Kelly were at 2:30.
    So your dogmatic claim is pure speculation.

    The only thing Lewis corroborates is that hutch was standing out in the middle of the night, with no good explanation, waiting and watching "for someone to come out". creepy suspicious behavior if ive ever heard it.
    There was a lot of 'creepy' men reported in the press, that doesn't make them all killers. The East End was a creepy place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post

    The PC should have seen him twice.
    Not if Hutchinson was not there on the night, he wouldn´t.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-11-2018, 03:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Something doesn't add up.

    Surprise!

    Top cartoon. There is Hutchinson's mother of Jews description. You couldn't get much better than the details in that drawing. A fully fledged out composite of JtR with horseshoe necktie pin and all. Now look to left. There is Hutchinson looking surprised at this ghastly fellow picking up MJK. Now look below that drawing and there is an officer. His name is L.63. His real name still a mystery. Look at the L.63 is saying 'I was on duty all night and never heard a sound'.

    So apparently Lambeth 63 wasn't present when Hutchinson's man picked up MJK and didn't see anything (never heard a sound).

    L.63 is Hutchinson's corroboration... or at least should be. How is it that Hutchinson who claims to have been there for 45 minutes didn't see this PC on his rounds?

    The PC should have seen him twice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
    Good evening Fisherman et al ..



    But I am excited, and I'm afraid nothing can dampen my enthusiasm at this point, because the simple straightforward way in which RJ explained it has set me free. As a non-Hutchinsonian, I have choices! I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    I. He came forward as a good citizen and told the truth. He knew Mary Kelly, and he did encounter and speak to her. He saw the well dressed man and stayed and observed after they entered her domicile together.

    II. He was there, although his story is somewhat embellished, but he has the gist of it.

    III. He wasn't there and none of this happened. Why come forward and tell this tale? Because he could, that's all, nothing nefarious. He was all worked up over the 'orrible murder.

    IV. Yes he was there and I. or II. occurred but he had the wrong night.

    It doesn't matter which it was, because Hutch was not the serial killer we seek. (This is a suspect thread, you know) Further, I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    A. He was Toppy

    B. He was not Toppy

    No problem either way

    In fact, I can even take joy in Simon Wood's proposal, because I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    1. There was a Jack the Rippper

    2. There was no Jack the Ripper

    All bases covered

    Like the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast *, I have choices and I feel great. I wish I could invite all of you for a free cyber breakfast and pick up the tab on PayPal or however that works. Have a nice evening,

    Roy

    * two eggs made to order, two strips of bacon, two sausage links, crispy hash browns and two fluffy buttermilk pancakes.
    Then I am also excited. For you. Content ripperologists are uncommon. All cred to R J if he can accomplish that!
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-10-2018, 10:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Roy. Many years ago I used to work the swing shift and occasionally graveyard. Afterwards, I would sometimes swing by the Denny's in Glenwood, Oregon (just off I-5) for the grand slam breakfast.

    They filmed a rather well-know scene in Jack Nicholson's film Five Easy Pieces in this particular Denny's:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtfNE4z6a8

    I've sat in that same booth many times. They changed the sign out front for the filming; otherwise it is pretty much the same. It is still operation, and is still serving up the Grand Slam. I think they changed the oil in the deep fryer once or twice since those days....

    Have a good evening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy Corduroy
    replied
    Good evening Fisherman et al ..

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Not to dampen your enthusiasm, Roy, but the argument that Lewis would have had a few seconds only, in darkness to boot, to observe the loiterer had been presented many times before. ... etc
    But I am excited, and I'm afraid nothing can dampen my enthusiasm at this point, because the simple straightforward way in which RJ explained it has set me free. As a non-Hutchinsonian, I have choices! I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    I. He came forward as a good citizen and told the truth. He knew Mary Kelly, and he did encounter and speak to her. He saw the well dressed man and stayed and observed after they entered her domicile together.

    II. He was there, although his story is somewhat embellished, but he has the gist of it.

    III. He wasn't there and none of this happened. Why come forward and tell this tale? Because he could, that's all, nothing nefarious. He was all worked up over the 'orrible murder.

    IV. Yes he was there and I. or II. occurred but he had the wrong night.

    It doesn't matter which it was, because Hutch was not the serial killer we seek. (This is a suspect thread, you know) Further, I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    A. He was Toppy

    B. He was not Toppy

    No problem either way

    In fact, I can even take joy in Simon Wood's proposal, because I believe George Hutchinson was not Jack the Ripper and:

    1. There was a Jack the Rippper

    2. There was no Jack the Ripper

    All bases covered

    Like the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast *, I have choices and I feel great. I wish I could invite all of you for a free cyber breakfast and pick up the tab on PayPal or however that works. Have a nice evening,

    Roy

    * two eggs made to order, two strips of bacon, two sausage links, crispy hash browns and two fluffy buttermilk pancakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Actually, that point was raised years ago.
    The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

    It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

    The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
    This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

    The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
    That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

    Lewis confirms Hutchinson, it's that simple.
    wicky

    Actually, that point was raised years ago.
    The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

    It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

    The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
    This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.
    he may have been at the inquest, outside the doors, talking to people on the streets, etc. or -He was staying at the victoria house a stones throw from the Kelly murder scene, he could have picked it up there.


    even if he hadnt even heard of Lewis at the inquest, he may have simply wanted to wait until the inquest was over before coming forward, for obvious reasons if he wasnt telling the truth.

    The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
    That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

    again for the millionth time-NO. physically impossible for lewis to have seen the same couple hutch did. Aman and Mary were already inside by the time Lewis arrived. talk about "ridiculous"! give it up man.


    The only thing Lewis corroborates is that hutch was standing out in the middle of the night, with no good explanation, waiting and watching "for someone to come out". creepy suspicious behavior if ive ever heard it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X