Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sympathy for Hutch

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    Besides, Dorset Street was eight feet wide
    ...nearer twenty-eight, actually! Bit of a typo, there, Ben
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #62
      Hi Gareth,

      Sort of. The width of the actual street, excluding the pavement, was shown to have been approximately eight feet in a previous geography-related thread (now in a cyber black-hole alas!) Naturally, the total width would need to include the pavement on both sides.

      Comment


      • #63
        Hi Ben,
        Originally posted by Ben View Post
        The width of the actual street, excluding the pavement, was shown to have been approximately eight feet
        I bring "Mrs Donnelly of Crossinghams (West)" back out of the black hole to help:

        Click image for larger version

Name:	dorset-street-mrsdonnelly.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	50.3 KB
ID:	652668

        If she was of average height for a woman (about 5ft), I make the road - between the pavements - roughly 14 feet wide.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          ...nearer twenty-eight, actually! Bit of a typo, there, Ben
          Well 28 and 8 are 36 which is just 3 away from 39. Hmmmm. Seems mighty suspicious to me.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #65
            Good points, Ben.

            Everything you said was right. Hutchinson could have used Cox's satements, people in waiting are not cemented to one spot, dark and noiseless came in the press accounts, and I did address this myself.

            The reason I did so was to say that I felt anyone both careful enough to utilize Cox's statement and not exactly telling the whole truth so help him god, would have been careful enough to put himself on the same side of the street as Lewis did. That was all I wanted to say.
            Last edited by paul emmett; 02-26-2008, 01:00 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Cutting it a bit fine...?

              In his press statement, Hutchinson's stated departure time was dangerously close to when Cox said she returned to the Court that night. If Hutchinson was clever enough to fabricate his story based on the evidence of Mrs Cox, would he not have tried to put a greater distance between her arriving at Miller's Court and his presence and departure therefrom?
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                In his press statement, Hutchinson's stated departure time was dangerously close to when Cox said she returned to the Court that night. If Hutchinson was clever enough to fabricate his story based on the evidence of Mrs Cox, would he not have tried to put a greater distance between her arriving at Miller's Court and his presence and departure therefrom?
                Yes, Sam, he would have put in more distance, espescially since, as you suggest, the 3:00 tolling of the bells as he leaves Miller's Court was only in his press statement. In the police report there is wiggle room, with him arriving at 2:00, seeing the couple, and staying "at the Court" 45 minutes.

                If he was using Cox's statement to bolster his case, why would he ever add the precision of 3:00, the very time Cox said she came back?

                But if he wasn't using Cox, he got the dark and quiet of Kelly's room right on his own--and, perhaps he wasn't using Lewis either, which for me entails the where ya at problem.
                Last edited by paul emmett; 02-26-2008, 01:49 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Hi Paul,
                  Originally posted by paul emmett View Post
                  But if he wasn't using Cox, he got the dark and quiet of Kelly's room right on his own--and, perhaps he wasn't using Lewis either, which for me entails the where ya at problem.
                  It may have been reasonable for Hutchinson - a "local" - to guess that Miller's Court would have been comparatively quiet towards 03:00. Whilst I don't accept every atom of his testimony, I don't find it difficult to believe that he was there at some point early that morning, and would therefore have known at first hand how quiet it was.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Whilst I don't accept every atom of his testimony, I don't find it difficult to believe that he was there at some point early that morning, and would therefore have known at first hand how quiet it was.
                    Hello, Sam.

                    That's what I think, too. So I'm gonna quit while we're in agreement, and not ask what capacity you feel he might be there in.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      To me the sighting in the Eddowes case in which 3 people saw him or were in a position to see him , with the victim herself not just lurking across the street,was a strong indication about the Ripper's attitude about witnesses and situations were witnesses were present before a murder. If he could withstand the sighting in the eddowes case he could have withstand the sighting in Lewis 's case.
                      In order to believe that Hutchinson has any kind of reason to go to the police it has to be shown that Lewis knew Hutchinson or if Hutchinson even knew Kelly or visited or talked to her in Miller's Court or Dorset St.or anywhere. I think the newspapers or police would have pursued these. So far no newspapers or police documents or memoirs ever stated this. Not one person ever alluded to that kelly or lewis knew hutchinson or at least seen them together,at the very least if Hutchinson was ever in Dorset st. as a lodger, visitor or acquaintance of one person.
                      So with what is available Hutchinson/ripper has no basis.
                      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


                      • #71
                        You raised this spurious "objection" three times with the same identical wording on each occasion on the "old board", and three times I addressed it. You've now raised it twice more on the "new" boards, and not once have you had the courtesy to address the counterarguments. It doesn't matter in the slightest if Lewis and Hutchinson were not acquainted. This was a close-knit locality, and the possibilty of a subsequent identification within that tight-knit locality was very strong indeed. It's a bit ridiculous to claim that the ripper "didn't care" to be seen with earlier victims. How can we possibly know that? Of course he was concerned about being seen - it was an occupational hazard that came with Whitechapel and Spitalfields being both busy and densely populated. He could do nothing about it, but before October 19th he had every reason to believe that earlier witnesses had only provided inadequate descriptions based on inadequate sightings. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

                        Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

                        In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom"

                        Hardly plausible, but any excuse to regurgitate all this again...
                        Last edited by Ben; 02-27-2008, 05:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Ben View Post

                          If witnesses from previous murders were reintroduced into the equation and all identified Hutchinson as the man they'd seem, he'd be in a spot on bother. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd only be seen an hour before the crime scene. Several witnesses attesting to having seen the same man would have been incriminating enough...

                          ...we know that GH did pop to the cop shop. We don't know why than happened, but if he did so because he was the killer attempting to "legitimize" his presence at a crime scene, it wouldn't be remotely unusual or unlikely...
                          Hi Ben,

                          The problem with your reasoning is that if Hutch the Ripper knows perfectly well that he was the man seen on previous murder nights, he also knows he will be in far more than ‘a spot of bother’ if he pops to the cop shop to admit to having been at the latest crime scene (“I'll have to go because some woman saw me lurking there damn it!”) and the cops then fetch every other witness to date to give him the once-over precisely because some woman testified independently that she saw someone just like him sniffing around Mary’s place.

                          Originally posted by Ben View Post

                          ...before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed him had only provided inadequate descriptions. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

                          Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?
                          If Hutch the Ripper learns that the cops have been deliberately suppressing witness descriptions, it makes his pop to the cop shop ten times more precarious because he knows that just one reliable witness description sitting suppressed under the desk is going to fit him like a glove, and even the thickest cop is not going to see a perfect match and say, “Well what a coincidence, my good man! You could be him! Except you can’t be him because you is a truthful witness, not a bloomin’ murderin’ forinner. Much obliged to you, Sir, for your valuable help and I’ll bid you good day. But may I suggest you remove that distinctive wideawake hat on your way out, as it is an extremely unusual accessory for the East End and it might give the ladies a fright and make ’em think Jack must be after ’em.”

                          Originally posted by Frank van Oploo View Post

                          Not that I think it's the most likely that GH was MJK's killer, but there would have been no sense in going to the police when he knew he had already been questioned/was already suspected/was looked for. Obviously, it would have been too late then. So, if he chose to come forward to try and deflect possible suspicion away from him, he had to do it before he was ever named or fingered.
                          Hi Frank,

                          But that, I think, touches on Ben’s point: when Hutch the Ripper pops to the cop shop he goes because he knows the cops could be deliberately suppressing all manner of descriptions of him.

                          So presumably he imagines that the cops might be persuaded to forget all about looking for any Hutch clones seen near previous crime scenes if they are suddenly offered a new, polar opposite description (Mr A) by - er - a Hutch clone.

                          I can see the logic of Hutch the Witness serving up Mr A, thinking he fits with previous published witness descriptions or killer profiles. But Hutch the Ripper knows that the only genuine and reliable witness description will be of him, and therefore quite unlike Mr A. It's a paradox: if the cops accept Mr A, then they obviously have no Hutch clone descriptions suppressed under the desk and he needn't have shown his guilty face at all; if the cops reject Mr A, because he doesn't sound remotely like the chap described to them in secret, because that chap is in fact Hutch, then Hutch is snookered.

                          I will see the logic in all this eventually, I’m sure. Just as long as Ally sees it first and can explain it to me.

                          Can’t say fairer than that.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Last edited by caz; 02-27-2008, 07:43 PM.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Hello all,

                            Ive read the thinking that for Hutch to come forward based on seeing or hearing or Sarah's Wideawake Hat Man, he puts himself in grave risk...but I believe its the exact opposite, his story not only exonerates him for being there somewhat...(still not clear how spying on someone claimed to be a friend, who is murdered that night...and then waiting 4 days to speak of it is "friendly"),...but Hutchinsons story effectively removes a stalker, or killer, or killers accomplice, in the guise of Wideawake Man.

                            The Pardon for Accomplices was issued 1 day after Marys murder...on a Saturday...from the desk of a man who had already submitted his resignation. Im sure the cumulative pressure added to the issuance, but I believe the haste shows they believed Wideawake played a role that night.

                            But maybe not, after Georgie Boy. If he was the killer.....and if so I tend to see the merits of Bens Flemming/Hutch identity realistic....then he gets himself OFF the hook with his statement, with the investigators. But not with me personally though.

                            My best regards.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Hi Caz,

                              The problem with your reasoning is that if Hutch the Ripper knows perfectly well that he was the man seen on previous murder nights, he also knows he will be in far more than ‘a spot of bother’ if he pops to the cop shop to admit to having been at the latest crime scene (“I'll have to go because some woman saw me lurking there damn it!”) and the cops then fetch every other witness to date to give him the once-over precisely because some woman testified independently that she saw someone just like him sniffing around Mary’s place.
                              That's not really a "problem" with my reasoning, though. It would only be a problem if we didn't have evidence of other killers - both serial and one-off - coming forward under false pretences to legitimise potentially incrimating evidence linking them to a crime or crime scene. It's important to establish a distinction between what you personally consider to be an imprudent, shortsighted move on the part of a killer, and what killers actually do. The latter is obviously what we should be interested in, not the former, but even if it was necessary to rationalise behaviour that we know happens anyway, that's a doddle too.

                              Yes, there was always the potential for earlier witnesses to be re-introduced to look Hutchinson over, but in order for this to happen, they'd need to suspect him of the crimes in the first place, and this outcome was far more likely if he was dragged in as a suspect than if he introduced himself voluntarily as a witness. It wasn't as though such a course of action was going to conduce an immediate "You're Jack the Ripper!" exclamation from an 1888 detective with no experience of serial crime, so he was arguably better off getting his story in first than having to explain himself at a later point.

                              As for witness descriptions, it should be borne in mind that there's a crucial difference between a "description" and a "sighting". One can get a very good look at a suspect, recognise his face, but still fail to provide an adequate description. A person might be as unremarkable and generic as they come, but that shouldn't prevent a potential witness from being able to recognise that person on a subsequent occasion. Hutchinson, if the killer, had more reason to fear a good "sighting" than a good "description".

                              I can see the logic of Hutch the Witness serving up Mr A, thinking he fits with previous published witness descriptions or killer profiles.
                              Really? I can't.

                              But Hutch the Ripper knows that the only genuine and reliable witness description will be of him, and therefore quite unlike Mr A. It's a paradox: if the cops accept Mr A, then they obviously have no Hutch clone descriptions suppressed under the desk and he needn't have shown his guilty face at all
                              No, Caz.

                              If the cops accepted Mr. A, it would have been a case of "Whew, back to our original suspicions: that the killer was a Jew or foreigner, not such a far cry from that Pizer fella, except obviously well dressed by virtue of his medical profession. Funny, in the wake of the double event we all thought for a crazy moment that a few witnesses had seen a working class shabby gentile, but we can forget about that now. We have a new star witness, and he has vindicated everyone's initial suspicions; that JTR is an out-of-place conspicuous foreigner. Sorted."

                              Best regards,
                              Ben
                              Last edited by Ben; 03-03-2008, 03:37 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Hello all,

                                Although Im posting to address current comments, Im not having my posts entered as new...so to re-iterate...

                                George Hutchinson statement is an explanation of a suspect witnessed by Sarah Lewis....it changes the "suspect" into a concerned friend, and removes Wideawake Hat as a possible accomplice or killer. Instead, Astrakan Man becomes that man...someone no-one else saw. When Hutchinson is disbelieved within 48 hours, the suspect description reverts not to Wideawake again....but to Blotchy Face....the last man actually seen with Mary.

                                George Hutchinson changes the suspicious nature of Wideawake...and if he was also the killer, it was brilliantly done.

                                Best regards.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X