Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostOn Monday 12th November, the early edition of the Evening Standard—on sale before the start of the inquest, and the fifth edition of the Star, on sale before Inspector Abberline gave his evidence at the inquest—reported a development—
Inspector Abberline—“The key of the woman’s door has been found, so her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.”
[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.
So with the lamp facing the door. I am assuming that Mary Cox would have seen Mary go round the side to open the door through the broken pane. Of course, she may not have mentioned it, but I am just wondering if the key was found a day or two earlier? The killer then locked the door from the outside and maybe threw the key in the room through the smashed window.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DJA View Post
Even if they were stupid enough not to put their arm through the window.
It's jumping to conclusions that is the basis of too many theories in this case.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DJA View PostBowyer knew the window was broken.
Phillips knew the window was broken.
Apparently it had been broken for weeks.
McCarthy didn't know?
Leave a comment:
-
On Monday 12th November, the early edition of the Evening Standard—on sale before the start of the inquest, and the fifth edition of the Star, on sale before Inspector Abberline gave his evidence at the inquest—reported a development—
Inspector Abberline—“The key of the woman’s door has been found, so her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.”
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostBreaking the door down isn't quite correct though. McCarthy opened his door to avoid the police breaking it down.
A pick-axe has a flat end opposite to the spike end, it is the flat side you would use to jimmy open the door to keep the damage to a minimum.
Nobody needed to take a pick to the door.
Even if they were stupid enough not to put their arm through the window.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostA locked room mystery was being sold.
If McCarthy did have a spare key he wouldn't have needed to break down the door, and that would have ruined the denouement of said scenario.
The owner had taken back the bloodhounds several days earlier.Last edited by DJA; 12-08-2018, 07:47 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Breaking the door down isn't quite correct though. McCarthy opened his door to avoid the police breaking it down.
A pick-axe has a flat end opposite to the spike end, it is the flat side you would use to jimmy open the door to keep the damage to a minimum.
Leave a comment:
-
A locked room mystery was being sold.
If McCarthy did have a spare key he wouldn't have needed to break down the door, and that would have ruined the denouement of said scenario.
Leave a comment:
-
I am still wondering why he didn't keep a spare key. If he had one and failed to admit to it then that's a bit incriminating.
Seems strange a landlord wouldn't be able to access their own premises in Whitechapel.
Leave a comment:
-
You could put it that way.
I prefer to believe it was a BS story to gloss over the time period between Abberline's arrival at 11.30-ish and 1.30 pm when the door to Room 13 was allegedly broken down.
A lot can be accomplished in two hours.
Leave a comment:
-
On November 14th 1888, the New York Sun's London correspondent Arthur Brisbane interviewed Robert Anderson.
Anderson told him—
“At 11 o’clock the last murder was discovered, and we knew of it here in Scotland Yard a few minutes later. The officer who had wired us the event asked us also to send the bloodhounds. I personally object to the service of these animals in a thickly populated city like this, though I believe it would be extremely valuable in the case of a rural murder. However, as Superintendent Arnold was just then with me, I asked him what he thought, and he begged me not to send the hounds: that it would only lead to mischief.”
Inspector Abberline told the inquest—
“We remained until about 1.30 pm, when Superintendent Arnold arrived, and he informed me that the order in regard to the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders for the door to be forced.”
John McCarthy put a different spin on matters. He told Central News—
“The Inspector [Abberline] waited a little while, and then sent a telegram to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds, so as to trace the murderer, if possible.”
This cannot have been true if Inspector Abberline was correct when he told the inquest—
“I had an intimation from Inspector Beck that the bloodhounds had been sent for, and the reply had been received that they were on the way. Dr. Phillips was unwilling to force the door, as it would be very much better to test the dogs, if they were coming.”
Other policemen were also anticipating the arrival of bloodhounds.
Echo, 12th November 1888—
“The Press Association says – ‘It is stated that an officer was waiting at Leman Street police station for six or seven hours on Friday for the hounds which had been telegraphed for. There are reasons to believe that Sir Charles Warren was at this time out of town, and in his absence no one knew where the animals were, or how they could be obtained.’”
Sir Charles Warren was not out of town. That morning he was at Scotland Yard [Whitehall Place].
The dogs were not on their way, as Inspector Beck had intimated to Abberline; but not, as Superintendent Arnold had informed Abberline, because the order had been countermanded.
There never were any bloodhounds to send.
The story is BS.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View PostGiven the situation, I think McCarthy can be forgiven for not thinking clearly and logically. I don't see any reason to suspect him of the murder.
c.d.
Dogs never arrived.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: